Poultry Slaughter Modernization

1. How will modernizing poultry inspection make chicken and turkey products safer to 

eat? 

Since USDA first began inspecting poultry in 1957, USDA has learned a great deal about 

how to detect pathogens and control for them. Modernizing poultry inspection means 

adopting a science-based, preventative approach to addressing contamination on chicken and 

turkey products. 

In 1957, our inspection system was designed so that inspectors watched chickens or turkeys 

to spot visible defects on the carcasses as they came down the inspection line. In 2014, we 

now understand that since pathogens are microscopic, even our very best inspectors cannot 

visually identify foodborne illness-causing pathogens on a piece of chicken, regardless of 

how much time they have to inspect it. To determine whether establishments are effectively 

preventing contamination by these microscopic foodborne illness-causing pathogens, we use 

data, microbial sampling, scientific tests, and conduct activities to verify that plants’ food 

safety systems are working and are under control. 

The New Poultry Inspection System, which FSIS is adding to the list of optional ways 

poultry companies can operate, prioritizes precisely these activities. Under the 50-year old 

inspection system, some FSIS inspection program personnel assist companies in sorting 

through carcasses to identify visual defects, such as bruises, scabs, or sores. While these 

defects may pose a concern for the marketability of the product, they pose little or no threat 

to food safety. Under the New Poultry Inspection System, the online inspectors who 

previously helped companies sort poultry carcasses will now be stationed at the end of the 

slaughter process, after the plant employees have conducted sorting activities, to conduct 

carcass-by-carcass inspections for food safety problems while each inspection line will now 

have one off-line inspector to conduct food safety verification activities such as taking 

samples for microbial testing, examining plant and equipment sanitation, checking plant 

records, and observing the companies’ employees and equipment at work to assess overall 

process control.

Besides creating the optional New Poultry Inspection System, FSIS is also placing new 

pathogen control and testing requirements on all poultry facilities, regardless of which 

system they operate under. 

2. But this system uses fewer inspectors. Isn’t that counterintuitive to food safety, and 

isn’t it privatizing inspection?

For food safety, the key issue is the specific strategies used to prevent foodborne illnesses. 

Currently, poultry companies may operate under one of four inspection programs, and FSIS 

is adding the New Poultry Inspection System as a fifth option. FSIS is adding this updated 

science-based inspection system to the list of optional programs because our 15-year pilot 
Poultry Slaughter Modernization

program showed that it is better than the other systems for ensuring food safety. Data from 

our pilot program shows that an inspection system like the New Poultry Inspection System 

results in greater compliance with sanitation and HACCP regulations, carcasses with lower 

levels of visible fecal contamination, and equivalent or lower levels of Salmonella

contamination. These positive results were able to be achieved with fewer inspectors overall, 

but more inspectors deployed to more meaningful food safety-based activities.

Under the New Poultry Inspection System, the online inspectors who previously helped 

companies sort poultry carcasses based mostly on quality factors will be stationed at the end 

of the slaughter process, after the plant employees have conducted sorting activities, to 

conduct carcass-by-carcass inspections focused on food safety. In addition, each inspection 

line will now have one off-line inspector to conduct food safety verification activities. The 

sorting activities will be carried out by the processing company’s personnel instead of FSIS 

inspection personnel. FSIS inspectors will verify that the plant employees are effectively 

sorting the carcasses, and that the establishment’s system is under control and preventing the 

creation of insanitary conditions. An increase in offline inspection activities has been proven 

to better ensure food safety. 

Significantly, FSIS will now require that all poultry companies prevent Salmonella and 

Campylobacter contamination rather than addressing contamination after it occurs. Also for 

the first time ever, all poultry facilities will be required to perform their own microbiological 

testing at two points in their production process to show that their procedures for preventing 

contamination by enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, are effective. 

These requirements are in addition to FSIS’ own testing, which the agency will continue to 

perform.

3. If the New Poultry Inspection System is better for inspecting chicken and turkey, why is 

it optional? 

Some components of FSIS’s modernization rule are mandatory for every poultry facility. 

Under this rule, all poultry facilities will be required to document the actions they will take to 

control Salmonella, Campylobacter and other food safety dangers. They will also have to 

prove to FSIS through new testing requirements that these food safety steps are working to 

control illness-causing pathogens. 

Through the comment period, we heard feedback that a one size fits all approach was not 

feasible, especially for smaller facilities. Therefore we are giving companies the option to 

adopt the New Poultry Inspection System or maintain their current inspection system. 

 

4. Will industry be subject to more requirements under the final rule? How will this rule

protect public health and prevent food borne illness?

Yes, industry will now be subject to multiple additional requirements.

All poultry slaughter establishments, including those that choose not to operate under the 

NPIS, will be required to treat pathogens like Salmonella as food safety hazards, and and 
Poultry Slaughter Modernization

failure to implement effective measures to control these pathogens would be a basis for an 

inspector to take appropriate regulatory action, including suspending operations at the 

establishment. Previously, no such requirement existed.

All establishments, with some exceptions for very small businesses, will be required to 

conduct microbial testing at two points in the slaughter process to ensure they are controlling 

Salmonella and other pathogens. The smallest establishments will be required to conduct 

microbial testing at one point in the process. Previously, plants were required to test at one 

location for generic E. coli, which is not as valuable for indicating food safety as we 

previously thought, and the vast majority of facilities easily met this requirement. Therefore, 

we are implementing a more aggressive testing requirement.

5. What are some examples of things your inspectors will now be doing under the New 

Poultry Inspection System that they were not doing before?

By assigning an offline inspector to each evisceration line (previously, one inspector covered 

multiple evisceration lines), these inspectors are able and required to complete a higher 

number of offline inspection tasks. The rule does not create new tasks for offline inspectors 

to perform but does result in more of these tasks being completed. Examples of off-line 

activities include:

 Taking samples of product that our labs can analyze for Salmonella and Campylobacter; 

 Every hour, offline inspectors will pull ten birds off the line to check for visible fecal 

material, as well as other defects missed by the company’s sorters. Detection of these 

defects may result in a Non-Compliance Report (NR), and possible production stoppage. 

Under other inspection programs, only 20 birds are checked this way per 8-hour shift. 

 Verifying compliance with sanitation standard operating procedures; 

 Verifying compliance with sanitation performance standards; 

 Verifying compliance with HACCP regulatory requirements;

 Observing the steps in the process to ensure that they are under control;

 Ensuring that poultry are slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices 

(compliance with these requirements ensures that poultry are handled humanely prior to 

FSIS online inspection); 

 Reviews of records;

 Ensuring the establishment is meeting all regulatory requirements, including the zero 

tolerance for visible fecal material; and,

 Ensuring an establishment is effectively preventing contamination by enteric pathogens 

and fecal material throughout the entire slaughter and dressing process.

6. If companies, instead of federal inspectors, are sorting out carcasses with visible defects, 

should I expect a decrease in the quality of poultry products? 

No. Under the current inspection system, some FSIS inspection program personnel assist 

companies in sorting through carcasses to identify visual defects, such as bruises, scabs, or 

sores. While these defects may pose a concern for the marketability of the product, they pose 

little or no threat to food safety. Under the New Poultry Inspection System, the online 

inspectors who previously helped companies sort poultry carcasses will now be stationed at 
Poultry Slaughter Modernization

the end of the slaughter process, after the plant employees have conducted sorting activities, 

to conduct carcass-by-carcass inspections and will be augmented by off-line inspection 

activities including but not limited to: taking samples for microbial testing, examining plant 

and equipment sanitation, checking plant records, and observing the companies’ employees 

and equipment at work to assess overall process control. 

7. Fecal material is visible, and it carries pathogens. How will this new system address this 

food safety concern with fewer inspectors? 

FSIS expects that protection against fecal contamination and pathogens will be much greater 

under the new rule. Data from the HIMP pilot study, which was used to inform the New 

Poultry Inspection System, show that fecal contamination rates are lower in HIMP 

establishments than in non-HIMP establishments. Specifically, the data show that HIMP 

plants had fewer non-compliance reports for fecal material than non-HIMP plants. 

This is because in non-HIMP plants, FSIS on-line inspectors do not react to fecal 

contamination at a location immediately prior to the chiller. The anticipation is that the online reprocessing will correct any contamination issues. In HIMP and under the new optional 

system, FSIS on-line and off-line inspectors actually look for possible fecal contamination at 

a location immediately prior to the chiller, prevent it from entering the chiller, and issue a 

Non-Compliance Report if any birds contaminated with fecal material make it that far. 

Moreover, all plants will be testing carcasses before, as well as after, the chiller for microbial 

contamination. 

8. With fewer inspectors in poultry facilities, how will FSIS ensure that birds are handled 

humanely? 

Because more inspectors will be free to move about the plant, they will be able to observe the 

area of the plant where live birds are handled more often than they are now. Online 

inspectors do not observe live birds. 

9. Will poultry companies be allowed to increase their evisceration line speed? 

FSIS is not increasing the maximum allowable line speed in chicken facilities. Turkey 

facilities will be able to increase their line speeds slightly, from 51 to 55 birds per minute. 

10. What measures did FSIS take in the final rule regarding worker safety? 

FSIS’ core mission and statutory obligation is to protect the safety of the food supply. While 

we do not have legal authority in the area of worker health, we recognize that the federal 

government has an obligation to protect worker health. In the proposed rule, FSIS 

acknowledged that any improvements to food safety should be made with worker safety in 

mind. 

Throughout this rulemaking process, FSIS has worked extensively with NIOSH and OSHA, 

who are the government agencies with the expertise and authority to address worker safety 
Poultry Slaughter Modernization

issues in private industry workplaces. FSIS has committed to working with NIOSH and 

OSHA on disseminating the guidance resulting from the completed NIOSH study, and 

ensuring greater awareness by FSIS and the industry about worker safety and health.

Specific changes to this rule regarding worker safety include: 

• The regulation describing the NPIS now emphasizes that companies operating under 

the new program have an existing legal obligation to comply with OSHA’s statutes.

• A new subpart in the regulations provides that each establishment that participates in 

NPIS needs to submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of 

the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that it maintains a program to monitor 

and document any work-related conditions of establishment workers. The elements of 

this program include: 

1) Policies to encourage early reporting of symptoms of work-related injuries and 

illnesses, and assurance that the establishment has no policies or programs 

intended to discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses.

2) Notification to employees of the nature and early symptoms of occupational 

illnesses and injuries, in a manner and language that workers can understand, 

including by posting in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees 

are customarily posted, a copy of the FSIS / OSHA poster encouraging reporting 

and describing reportable signs and symptoms.

3) Monitoring on a regular and routine basis of injury and illness logs, as well as 

nurse or medical office logs, workers' compensation data, and any other injury or 

illness information available.

• A commitment to issuing FSIS notice, “Procedures for Notifying the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA).” The notice establishes a procedure for FSIS inspection 

personnel to notify OSHA directly of serious workplace hazards that may affect non-federal 

establishment personnel in meat and poultry products establishments and in egg product 

plants. The notice provides inspection personnel with a confidential 1-800 number to refer 

an occupational safety or health concern for a plant employee directly to OSHA.

11. What steps did FSIS take to ensure that the process for developing this modernization 

effort was transparent to the public? 

Throughout the more than two years that have passed since FSIS first published the original 

proposal, numerous steps have been taken to solicit public feedback that have resulted in a 

significantly changed modernization effort. FSIS held a 120-day comment period, during 

which we received 250,000 comment letters and worked for two years to review and address 

them. Specific examples of our public dialogue include: 

• The proposal for this decision was given an extended review period. The proposal was 

published on January 27, 2012, the agency announced on April 19 that the comment 

period was extended an additional 30 days, ending on May 29, 2012.
Poultry Slaughter Modernization

• A public meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection 

was held on March 21, 2012, to present information on the proposal to the committee.

• The agency received more than 2,260 public submissions on this proposal. FSIS received 

more than 250,000 comment letters, most of which were submitted as part of organized 

write-in campaigns. The Agency also received a petition that included approximately 

150,000 signatures and form letters before the comment period closed. The Agency 

received two other petitions in November 2012, after the comment period closed. One of 

the petitions included approximately 180,000 signatures and 13,000 comments, and the 

other included over 3,500 signatures.

• Also since the rule was proposed, FSIS has:

o Held 19 monthly meetings with consumer advocacy groups, in addition to 5 

meetings specifically on the proposed rule. 

o Held 20 monthly meetings with industry groups. 

o Made two reports to Congress. 

• In addition, this modernized inspection system has been tested for 15 years through a 

pilot project and there has been opportunity for the public to comment throughout the 

course of the pilot.