type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Great Plains Region\n Audit Report\n\n\n FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION\n SERVICE\nOVERSIGHT OF PRODUCTION PROCESS\n AND RECALL AT CONAGRA PLANT\n (ESTABLISHMENT 969)\n\n\n\n\n Report No.\n 24601-2-KC\n September 2003\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Washington D.C. 20250\n\n\n\n\nDATE: September 30, 2003\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 24601-2-KC\n\nSUBJECT: Oversight of Production Process and Recall at ConAgra Plant\n\nTO: Dr. Garry L. McKee\n Administrator\n Food Safety and Inspection Service\n\nATTN: Ronald F. Hicks\n Acting Assistant Administrator\n Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review\n\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the Food Safety Inspection Service\xe2\x80\x99s\n(FSIS) oversight of the recall by the ConAgra Beef Company of its ground beef and beef\nproducts suspected of being contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This review was\nrequested by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Your\nAugust 18, 2003, written response to the official draft report is included in its entirety\n(except for the enclosures) as exhibit G with excerpts and the Office of Inspector\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) position incorporated into the Findings and Recommendations section\nof the report, where applicable. Exhibit E included references to proprietary production\ninformation of the three establishments cited therein. In order to protect this information\nfrom unauthorized disclosure, we have withheld the contents of this exhibit from\npresentation in our final audit report.\n\nWe accept the management decisions for Recommendations Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18,\n19, 23, and 26. Please follow your agency\xe2\x80\x99s internal procedures in forwarding\ndocumentation for final action to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Based on the\ninformation provided in the response, we were unable to reach management decisions\nfor Recommendations No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12-17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-31. For\nRecommendation No. 9, please note that we have revised the recommendation based\non your response. In order for us to consider the management decisions for these\nrecommendations, we will need additional information and/or action by your agency.\nThe additional information and/or actions needed are outlined in the report sections,\nOIG Position.\n\nIn accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within\n60 days describing the corrective actions taken or planned and the timeframes for\nimplementing the corrective actions on the recommendations for which management\n\x0cDr. Garry L. McKee 2\n\n\ndecisions have not yet been reached. Please note that the regulation requires a\nmanagement decision to be reached on all findings and recommendations within a\nmaximum of 6 months from report issuance, and final action to be taken within 1 year of\neach management decision.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided to our staff during the audit.\n\n\n/signed/\n\nRICHARD D. LONG\nAssistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE\n OVERSIGHT OF PRODUCTION PROCESS AND RECALL AT\n CONAGRA PLANT (ESTABLISHMENT 969)\n\n AUDIT NO. 24601-2-KC\n\n\n At the request of the Senate Committee on\n RESULTS IN BRIEF Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, we\n performed an audit of the Food Safety and\n Inspection Service\xe2\x80\x99s (FSIS) oversight of the\n recall by the ConAgra Beef Company1 (ConAgra) of 18 million pounds2 of\n ground beef and beef products suspected of being contaminated with\n E. coli O157:H7. ConAgra, Establishment 969, is located in Greeley,\n Colorado. The Committee requested that we review the effectiveness of\n the U.S. Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA) recall system as it was put in\n practice during the recall at ConAgra.\n\n The Federal meat inspection program is operated under the Hazard\n Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system that was adopted in\n 1998.3 Under the HACCP program, FSIS is responsible for verifying that\n each establishment\xe2\x80\x99s food safety system is operating in compliance with\n the regulations and in a way that will result in safe and wholesome meat\n products. FSIS is also responsible for verifying that each plant\xe2\x80\x99s food\n safety system is properly designed. Each establishment, in turn, is\n responsible for designing a food safety system that complies with\n sanitation performance standards, requirements for sanitation standard\n operating procedures (SSOP), HACCP requirements, and pathogen\n reduction activities. As part of HACCP, the establishment must identify\n and control (1) physical, chemical, and biological hazards to the\n production process, and (2) conduct a program of ongoing microbial\n testing to verify that the food safety system is working. The establishment\n is also responsible for monitoring meat production at every stage of the\n process to ensure the safety of meat products.\n\n\n1\n The ConAgra Beef Company was sold to Swift Foods Company in September 2002, after the recall, and\nthe Greeley, Colorado, production facility became known as Swift and Company. This report will refer to\nthe company only as ConAgra.\n2\n The USDA press release reported a figure of 19 million pounds, but that was an estimate only. The\nactual number of pounds recalled was 18,048,361.\n3\n Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 9 CFR Part 417.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page i\n\x0c Beginning in mid-June 2002, at least 46 people in 16 States became ill\n from contaminated meat. About 1 month earlier, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 microbiological\n tests of ground beef at a meat grinder that used product supplied by\n ConAgra identified the presence of E. coli O157:H7. Testing, conducted\n by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the\n Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), confirmed that about\n 23 individual E. coli illnesses around the State of Colorado were from the\n same genetic strain of E. coli. ConAgra officials agreed to an initial\n voluntary recall of 354,200 pounds of ground beef produced in late May of\n that year. A subsequent FSIS review of ConAgra records showed that\n beef product from that plant had been testing positive for E. coli O157:H7\n as early as April 12, 2002, and as late as July 11, 2002. At that time,\n ConAgra, Establishment 969, produced over 1 million pounds of beef a\n day. The recall was consequently expanded to include 18 million pounds\n of beef product.\n\n We evaluated the effectiveness of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s management and oversight of\n the recall of ConAgra product. We also determined whether FSIS was\n aware of potential problems at ConAgra prior to the recall and whether\n FSIS and ConAgra operated in accordance with HACCP requirements.\n Our audit found that neither ConAgra nor FSIS effectively fulfilled their\n responsibilities under HACCP. ConAgra did not design or reassess its\n food safety system to ensure it operated in compliance with SSOP and\n HACCP requirements. Data was available to both ConAgra and FSIS in\n the period prior to the recall (January 2001 to the expanded recall) that\n indicated E. coli O157:H7 contamination was becoming a continuous\n problem at ConAgra. FSIS inspectors did not recognize and/or respond to\n these indicators and followed FSIS policies that effectively limited the\n documents the inspectors could review and the enforcement actions they\n were allowed to take.\n\n FSIS needs to be more proactive in its oversight by seeking access to\n available sources of data and analyzing, on an ongoing basis, the data\xe2\x80\x99s\n importance as indicators of problems that could impact food safety. Also,\n FSIS needs to reassess its management and oversight of the recall\n process. The recall was ineffective and inefficient because adequate\n controls and processes were not in place to timely identify the source\n (establishment) of the contaminated product or provide reasonable\n assurance that recovery of the recalled product was maximized or\n enforcement actions taken, as necessary. As of the end of January 2003,\n only about 3 million pounds of the 18 million pounds of recalled product\n has been recovered. The majority of the beef was not returned or\n accounted for.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page ii\n\x0c Pre-Recall Indicators Showed Problems\n\n Pathogen testing and HACCP. The HACCP program was designed to rely\n on scientific, microbial testing to determine the wholesomeness of meat\n products. The program generally requires FSIS to test for E. coli O157:H7\n at plants producing ground beef. We found that FSIS inspectors at\n ConAgra did not perform their own tests and did not review other test\n results that were available to them.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Under FSIS policy, plants such as ConAgra that performed their own\n pathogen tests as a part of HACCP were exempt from FSIS testing,4\n and those tests ConAgra performed apart from HACCP were not\n directly presented to FSIS for review. None of the tests taken by\n ConAgra for HACCP purposes in 2001 and 2002 showed the presence\n of E. coli O157:H7, while at least 63 of the tests taken for non-HACCP\n purposes in 2002 did. The tests taken for HACCP purposes were on\n carcasses; the non-HACCP tests were taken on beef trim. Trimmings\n from meat cuts are used as ingredients in the production of many meat\n products, including ground beef.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS inspectors did not pursue the non-HACCP test results because\n they determined FSIS had no clear authority to review\n non-Government tests even though they knew those tests showed the\n presence of the E. coli pathogen. Test summaries, to which FSIS had\n access after the recall, showed an increasing frequency of E. coli\n O157:H7 contamination at ConAgra. Officials from FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 Technical\n Service Center (TSC) advised us that it is FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy not to require\n plants to provide their own testing results to inspectors.\n\n Reanalysis of hazards. In designing its HACCP system, ConAgra\n management assumed that E. coli O157:H7 contamination was not a\n hazard that was likely to occur. Consequently, the ConAgra HACCP\n system was unprepared to respond to the actual hazards that could and\n did present themselves. FSIS regulations require that a plant reassess its\n HACCP system when food safety hazards are found in the finished\n product.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ConAgra did not perform a reassessment of its HACCP system, even\n though its tests were showing an increasing presence of E. coli\n O157:H7 contamination.\n\n\n\n4\n This exemption was provided for by FSIS Directive 10,010.1 (Microbiological Testing Program for E. coli\nin Raw Ground Beef), dated February 1, 1998. This exemption was discontinued by FSIS effective\nSeptember 24, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page iii\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS plant inspectors were aware of some of ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s tests, but they\n believed that because the tests were not part of the HACCP program,\n they could not use the test results to force ConAgra to reassess its\n HACCP system.\n\n Enforcement actions. Before the recall, FSIS issued multiple\n noncompliance notifications to ConAgra for fecal contamination of product\n (the source of E. coli), but FSIS took no decisive enforcement action.\n Instead, it continually allowed ConAgra to introduce superficial stopgap\n measures, such as increasing supervision or retraining an employee. The\n actions taken by ConAgra did not provide assurance that the physical and\n biological hazards to the production process had been identified and\n controlled. No FSIS policy stipulates what level of noncompliance should\n result in enforcement action.\n\n Although inspectors at ConAgra raised concerns regarding the increasing\n level of fecal contamination and positive testing results, we could find no\n evidence that FSIS managers responded to the concerns raised. Before\n the recall, FSIS instituted a number of management reviews to provide\n FSIS managers with oversight mechanisms to better manage field\n operations, but ConAgra was never selected for any of these reviews.\n\n Both FSIS and Beef Processors Were Unprepared for a Recall\n\n Neither FSIS nor the processing plants involved in the ConAgra recall\n were prepared for the possibility of a recall. Although FSIS encourages all\n establishments to prepare recall plans, HACCP plans for two of the\n grinders using ConAgra beef did not address recall procedures. One of\n these grinders was unable to readily determine from its records which of\n its customers received the recalled product.\n\n FSIS policies added to the inefficiency of the recall by impeding the\n inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 ability to trace a contaminant from the grinder\xe2\x80\x99s establishment\n back to the supplier. FSIS inspectors discovered the pathogen at a meat\n grinding plant that used ConAgra product, but they could not test\n traceback samples because FSIS policy required concurrence from its\n TSC before the samples could be drawn, and the district office could not\n get this concurrence. FSIS policy held grinders accountable for ensuring\n that the product from their suppliers was wholesome. This policy, and the\n need for TSC concurrence for traceback samples, contributed to a 7-day\n delay in the recall and added to the quantity of beef product recalled.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS had imposed no specific requirement that plants keep production\n or distribution records. Poor records at the establishments that used\n ConAgra beef increased the difficulty FSIS had in tracking the further\n disbursement of the ground meat.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page iv\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviews designed by FSIS to determine the effectiveness of the recall\n were not used to exercise control over the recall process. After a\n recall, FSIS conducts effectiveness checks to determine if all\n distributors of the recalled product were notified of the recalled product\n and if all recalled product had been withheld from further distribution.\n These reviews were not performed in time to maximize the amount of\n ConAgra product recovered, and problems found during the reviews\n received limited management attention.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Even though 67 of the 490 effectiveness checks we reviewed indicated\n that distributors and others in the distribution chain had not been\n notified of the recall, FSIS district managers determined the recall was\n a success because, to their knowledge, no one consuming the\n unrecovered product became ill.\n\n During the recall, ConAgra altered its HACCP process by introducing\n lactic acid into the production of ground beef to control the E. coli O157:H7\n contaminant. FSIS approved the use of the acid but did not adequately\n document how it determined that lactic acid was an appropriate\n antimicrobial intervention in ground beef. We found scientific evidence\n that the use of lactic acid in ground beef may raise the cooking\n temperature necessary to destroy the E. coli O157:H7 contaminant. Thus,\n the pathogen may not be destroyed using current cooking temperature\n guidelines.\n\n Monitoring Needs To Be Proactive\n\n The recall of ConAgra beef products might have progressed more\n effectively if FSIS had provided closer monitoring of ConAgra and the\n establishments that processed its beef. Primarily, FSIS needed to ensure\n the establishments\xe2\x80\x99 HACCP plans were technically sufficient to ensure\n compliance with HACCP and SSOP requirements. HACCP plans at all\n three of the plants we reviewed for this audit did not adequately address\n all food safety hazards.\n\n FSIS officials stated that the FSIS in-plant personnel performing most of\n the reviews of HACCP plans were not sufficiently trained and, therefore,\n not technically competent to make accurate assessments of the plans. In\n 2000, FSIS started a program to hire and train a staff of technically\n competent personnel, and by the end of 2002, it had about 105 individuals\n available to review the more than 5,000 HACCP plans at federally\n inspected plants. However, even with the program in place, FSIS does\n not want or plan to have approval authority over establishment HACCP\n plans.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page v\n\x0c FSIS oversight needed strengthening in other key areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS guidance to reinspect carcasses when fecal contamination is\n observed is not clearly announced in FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 written policy. We noted at\n least one case where 175 beef carcasses at ConAgra may have been\n contaminated with fecal matter and were not reinspected.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 current random nationwide sampling of plants for the presence\n of E. coli O157:H7 does not verify the effectiveness of HACCP\n systems and does not measure the extent of a hazard. We concluded\n that the sampling should be based on the risk posed by individual\n plants.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS has no written procedures that require FSIS personnel to take\n control of or monitor beef that has tested positive for E. coli O157:H7.\n FSIS allowed ConAgra to resell contaminated beef without verifying\n that the buyers would not reuse it as raw ground.\n\n The Office of Inspector General issued a series of food safety audits in\n 2000 that reported our assessment as to whether FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 meat and poultry\n inspection program remained effective under HACCP. In that food safety\n initiative summary report, we concluded that while FSIS had taken positive\n steps in its implementation of the science-based HACCP program, FSIS\n needed to command a more aggressive presence in the inspection and\n verification process; it had reduced its oversight short of what was prudent\n and necessary for the protection of the consumer. The conditions noted in\n our review of the ConAgra recall have again led us to question the\n adequacy of establishment HACCP plans and FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 oversight and\n verification programs that identify and control hazards to the production\n process.\n\n Two of the conditions we noted during this review are, in our judgment,\n material internal control weaknesses\xe2\x80\x94namely (1) that FSIS lacked a\n process to accumulate, review, and analyze all data available to assess\n the adequacy of food safety systems and (2) that accurate assessments of\n HACCP plans had not been made because FSIS lacked sufficient,\n competent staff to make those assessments. As material weaknesses,\n these conditions should be included in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Manager\xe2\x80\x99s\n Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) report.\n\n During the recall and audit, FSIS took a number of actions to strengthen\n their inspection procedures. Also, in October 2002, FSIS informed\n establishments producing raw beef products of the need to reassess their\n HACCP plans, based on the assumption that E. coli O157:H7 is a hazard\n reasonably likely to occur at all stages of the process. FSIS has also\n begun comprehensive food safety assessments to evaluate the adequacy\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page vi\n\x0c of HACCP plans and food safety systems. These assessments are critical\n to the success of HACCP.\n\n On March 19, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a challenge to\n FSIS calling for creative and effective ways to modernize FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to\n continue to improve the safety of U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products to\n better protect public health. On July 10, 2003, the Department released a\n food safety vision document titled \xe2\x80\x9cEnhancing Public Health: Strategies\n for the Future.\xe2\x80\x9d This document articulated five core goals: (1) improve the\n management and effectiveness of regulatory programs; (2) ensure that\n policy decisions are based on science; (3) improve coordination of food\n safety activities with other public health agencies; (4) enhance public\n education efforts; and (5) protect meat, poultry, and egg products against\n intentional contamination. The vision statement, as well as portions of\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 response to the recommendations made in this report, describes the\n agency\xe2\x80\x99s accomplishments to date in meeting these goals. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n response to this report, as well as exhibit B, presents other actions under\n consideration to correct the problems reported herein.\n\n We are recommending that FSIS provide clear\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS authority for FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 access to all internal and\n external plant pathogen and microbial testing\n results, including tests performed for\n customers, and ensure plants notify FSIS of test results, especially when\n those results show the presence of pathogens. We had made a similar\n recommendation in our prior report of 2000, but FSIS determined not to\n amend the Grant of Inspection. We are reiterating the recommendation\n because we believe events have shown that FSIS needs to revisit its\n authorities and establish operating procedures to address the weaknesses\n disclosed in this audit.\n\n We are recommending that FSIS reassess its management control\n process over the recall operations. FSIS should make recall activities\n more effective by ensuring that ground beef is traceable from\n manufacturing to point-of-sale and that adequate production records are\n maintained to facilitate traceback. Regulations need to be issued to\n provide clear directions on when traceback samples are to be collected\n and how the samples are to be processed.\n\n We are also recommending that FSIS:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 establish a management control process to accumulate, review, and\n analyze all data available to the agency;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 establish criteria when enforcement action should be taken for\n repetitive violations and/or ineffective corrective action;\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page vii\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 increase supervision and oversight of ConAgra, Establishment 969,\n until the plant demonstrates it is capable of sanitary and wholesome\n production;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 strengthen its monitoring of inspector activities to ensure the inspectors\n achieve an acceptable level of performance in applying HACCP\n requirements; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 define the goals, objectives, and methods of its E. coli O157:H7 testing\n program and ensure that the program is risk-based and includes\n performance measures.\n\n Finally, we are recommending that FSIS instruct FSIS inspection\n personnel to take control of E. coli O157:H7 adulterated product and verify\n that product is properly processed or destroyed.\n\n In its August 18, 2003, written response to the\n AGENCY RESPONSE official draft report, FSIS was in agreement\n with the findings and recommendations\n presented therein, except for Recommen-\n dations Nos. 2, 9, 12, 15, and 24. Based on FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 response, we revised\n Recommendation No. 9. We have incorporated applicable portions of\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 response, along with our position, in the Findings and\n Recommendations section of this report. The agency\xe2\x80\x99s response is\n included in its entirety (except for the enclosures) as exhibit G.\n\n We concur with FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 proposed corrective\n OIG POSITION actions and have accepted management\n decisions for Recommendations Nos. 3, 4, 6,\n 7, 10, 11, 18, 19, 23, and 26. However, FSIS\n did not provide the specific actions planned, and estimated timeframes for\n implementation, to correct the conditions noted for Recommendations\n Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12-17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-31. FSIS, for these\n recommendations, generally responded that a directive will be issued or\n that a working group will be convened to study and recommend changes\n to its policies and procedures. Since FSIS has not provided the specific\n actions it will take to correct the conditions noted, we cannot accept\n management decisions for these recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page viii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i\n RESULTS IN BRIEF..................................................................................................... i\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... vii\n AGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................................. viii\n OIG POSITION ......................................................................................................... viii\n TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. ix\nINTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1\n BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1\n OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 6\n SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 7\n METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 7\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 9\n CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................ 9\n AVAILABLE INDICATORS BEFORE THE RECALL SHOWED THAT E. COLI\n O157:H7 CONTAMINATION WAS A PROBLEM AT CONAGRA.............................. 9\n FINDING NO. 1.......................................................................................................... 10\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 ..................................................................................... 16\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 ..................................................................................... 17\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 ..................................................................................... 19\n FINDING NO. 2.......................................................................................................... 20\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 ..................................................................................... 23\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 ..................................................................................... 24\n FINDING NO. 3.......................................................................................................... 26\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 ..................................................................................... 27\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 ..................................................................................... 28\n FINDING NO. 4.......................................................................................................... 29\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 8 ..................................................................................... 31\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 9 ..................................................................................... 33\n FINDING NO. 5.......................................................................................................... 35\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page ix\n\x0c RECOMMENDATION NO. 10 ................................................................................... 37\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 11 ................................................................................... 38\n CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................. 40\n RECALL OF CONAGRA BEEF PRODUCTS NEEDED MORE PROACTIVE\n INVOLVEMENT BY FSIS.......................................................................................... 40\n FINDING NO. 6.......................................................................................................... 41\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 12 ................................................................................... 42\n FINDING NO. 7.......................................................................................................... 43\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 13 ................................................................................... 47\n FINDING NO. 8.......................................................................................................... 48\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 14 ................................................................................... 55\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 15 ................................................................................... 56\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 16 ................................................................................... 57\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 17 ................................................................................... 58\n FINDING NO. 9.......................................................................................................... 59\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 18 ................................................................................... 62\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 19 ................................................................................... 63\n FINDING NO. 10........................................................................................................ 64\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 20 ................................................................................... 67\n CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................. 70\n MONITORING AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD SAFETY PROCEDURES AT BEEF\n PRODUCTION PLANTS NEED TO BE IMPROVED ................................................ 70\n FINDING NO. 11........................................................................................................ 71\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 21 ................................................................................... 74\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 22 ................................................................................... 75\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 23 ................................................................................... 76\n FINDING NO. 12........................................................................................................ 77\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 24 ................................................................................... 79\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 25 ................................................................................... 80\n FINDING NO. 13........................................................................................................ 81\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 26 ................................................................................... 84\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 27 ................................................................................... 85\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 28 ................................................................................... 86\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page x\n\x0c RECOMMENDATION NO. 29 ................................................................................... 87\n FINDING NO. 14........................................................................................................ 89\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 30 ................................................................................... 90\n FINDING NO. 15........................................................................................................ 91\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 31 ................................................................................... 93\nGENERAL COMMENTS............................................................................................... 95\n EXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 LOCATIONS VISITED ......................................................................... 96\n EXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 PROCEDURES, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS CHANGED AFTER\n THE CONAGRA RECALL ........................................................................................ 97\n EXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 CONAGRA RECALL TIMELINE ....................................................... 103\n EXHIBIT D \xe2\x80\x93 REPETITIVE NRs WRITTEN FOR ZERO TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS\n ................................................................................................................................. 112\n EXHIBIT E \xe2\x80\x93 DETAILS OF FLAWS IN HACCP PLANS......................................... 114\n EXHIBIT F \xe2\x80\x93 EXAMPLES OF UNSANITARY PRACTICES AND VIOLATIONS OF\n PROCEDURES AT CONAGRA .............................................................................. 115\n EXHIBIT G \xe2\x80\x93 FSIS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT................................... 119\nABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... 146\nGLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................. 149\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page xi\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n A request from the Senate Committee on\n BACKGROUND Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, dated\n July 26, 2002, asked the Office of Inspector\n General (OIG) to examine the effectiveness of\n the response by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the recall of\n 18 million pounds1 of ground beef and beef products by the ConAgra Beef\n Company (ConAgra)2 after beef product from that company was found to\n contain the pathogen Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7.3 At the time of\n this request, OIG had an audit survey in process to evaluate Food Safety\n and Inspection Service (FSIS) recall program. This work was put in\n abeyance to address the ConAgra recall.\n\n Beginning in mid-June 2002, at least 46 people in 16 States consumed\n ConAgra ground beef products and became ill. It was subsequently\n determined that these illnesses were caused by ground beef that was\n adulterated with E. coli O157:H7. Testing, conducted by the Colorado\n Department of Public Health and Environment and the Centers for\n Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), confirmed that about 23 individual\n E. coli illnesses around the State of Colorado were from the same genetic\n strain of E. coli. In mid-June, FSIS microbiological tests of ground beef at\n a Denver meat grinder identified the presence of the E. coli O157:H7\n pathogen. Later testing of the raw materials used in the ground beef that\n tested positive for the pathogen identified the source of the contamination\n as beef products coming from the ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado.\n\n On June 30, 2002, ConAgra officials agreed to an initial voluntary recall of\n 354,200 pounds of ground beef, which they identified as being produced\n on May 31, 2002, and the probable source of the adulterated product. At\n\n1\n For the USDA press release, 19 million pounds was estimated. The actual number of pounds recalled\nwas 18,048,361.\n2\n The recalled product was produced at the ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. According to press\nreports, the plant is one of the largest in the Nation, employing about 2,500 people. The plant slaughters\nabout 1.2 million cattle a year and processes, on average, at least 350 cattle per hour.\n3\n E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Although, most strains\nare harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this strain produces a powerful\ntoxin and can cause severe illness. E. coli O157:H7 was first recognized as a cause of illness in 1982;\nthe outbreak was traced to contaminated hamburgers. Since then, most infections have come from\neating undercooked ground beef. The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the bacterium\nrefers to the specific markers found on its surface and distinguishes it from other types of E. coli. The\norganism can be found on a small number of cattle farms and the organism can live in the intestines of\nhealthy cattle. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed\ninto beef when it is ground. Eating meat, especially ground beef that has not been cooked sufficiently to\nkill E. coli O157:H7, can cause infection (CDC Disease Information, Escherichia coli O157:H7, website).\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 1\n\x0c the direction of the Secretary, FSIS conducted an indepth review of\n ConAgra plant practices and company records. The review revealed\n multiple positive company sample results of its beef trim on various dates\n during the period April 12 through July 11, 2002.\n\n On July 18, 2002, because of the FSIS review, the company decided that\n the recall needed to be expanded to include about 18 million pounds of\n ground beef and beef trim. On the same day, FSIS issued a Notice of\n Intended Enforcement (NOIE) to ConAgra that allowed the company 3\n days to respond in writing to demonstrate why an inadequacy\n determination should not be made against its sanitation standard\n operating procedure (SSOP) and its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control\n Point (HACCP) system. Based on the company\xe2\x80\x99s response and planned\n corrective actions, the NOIE was held in abeyance and the plant\n continued to operate from July through mid-November. However, on\n November 15, 2002, FSIS suspended inspection services, effectively\n closing the plant. Inspection services were suspended because of\n repeated \xe2\x80\x9czero tolerance\xe2\x80\x9d violations that occurred following the issuance of\n the NOIE. (FSIS policy tolerates no amount of fecal material, ingesta, or\n milk in beef.) Zero tolerance failures had been a recurring problem at the\n plant for several years. The plant was allowed to resume operations on\n November 20, 2002, after the company presented FSIS with planned\n corrective actions that were deemed sufficient to correct the problems with\n zero tolerance failures.\n\n USDA\xe2\x80\x99s actions in carrying out the recall received widespread publicity\n and criticism in the Press and from Congress. These critics noted that the\n recall did not start until the end of June even though contaminated product\n was first produced in April and that the recall had to be expanded because\n not all potentially contaminated product had been identified until July. The\n critics also took FSIS procedures to task because they did not stipulate\n that FSIS should notify suppliers that their products were potentially the\n cause of contamination in ground beef found at meat grinders. The E. coli\n O157:H7 contamination was first identified at a Denver meat grinder \xe2\x80\x93\n Galligan Wholesale Meat Company (Galligan) \xe2\x80\x93 that used ConAgra beef.\n Shortly thereafter, a Montana meat grinder, Montana Quality Foods &\n Processing, Inc., (Montana Quality Foods), claimed to have suffered\n E. coli O157:H7 contamination from ConAgra beef as early as\n January 2002.\n\n Food Safety and the HACCP System\n\n To improve the safety of meat and poultry products, FSIS implemented\n regulatory requirements intended to ensure that plants operate food safety\n systems that are prevention-oriented and science-based. These systems,\n called HACCP systems, were phased in from January 1998 through\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 2\n\x0c January 2000 at all meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants.\n Under the HACCP system, plants are responsible for developing plans\n that identify all of the contamination hazards that are reasonably likely to\n occur in a plant\xe2\x80\x99s production environment, establish the steps needed to\n control these hazards, and have valid scientific evidence to support their\n decisions.\n\n Because the HACCP system relies on scientific standards, rather than the\n earlier sight-touch-smell inspections by FSIS inspectors, processing plants\n assume more control over the wholesomeness of their product. In turn,\n FSIS assumes a less obvious presence and relies, in part, on the\n pathogen test results to determine the effectiveness of the plants\xe2\x80\x99 HACCP\n controls.\n\n FSIS, through its 15 district offices across the country, oversees the\n activities of about 7,500 Federal inspectors who review the operations of\n about 5,000 plants subject to the HACCP requirements nationwide. As a\n part of their oversight, inspectors ensure that the plants\xe2\x80\x99 HACCP plans\n respond to the seven criteria established by regulation. The generic\n HACCP plan calls for the plant to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conduct an analysis of the potential hazards that could threaten the\n safety of the product;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identify critical points where controls can be applied to prevent,\n eliminate, or reduce a food safety hazard to an acceptable level;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish critical limits (e.g., minimum temperatures) at which the\n hazard is controlled;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish monitoring procedures to ensure that the measured values\n (temperatures, foreign particles, etc.) are within critical limits;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish corrective actions to be taken if critical limits are violated;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish recordkeeping procedures to document the monitoring of\n critical control points (CCP); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establish verification procedures to ensure the HACCP plan is\n effective.\n\n When FSIS inspectors find a violation of the HACCP requirements, such\n as a plant\xe2\x80\x99s failure to control fecal contamination, they document the\n violation on a noncompliance record (NR) and advise the plant. If the\n plant does not correct the violation, FSIS may take an enforcement action,\n such as slowing one or more production lines or withholding the \xe2\x80\x9cUSDA\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 3\n\x0c Inspected\xe2\x80\x9d stamp. From a sample of 14 large4 cattle slaughter plants like\n ConAgra, we found that FSIS issued an average of 89 NRs in 2001 and\n an average of 44 through August 2002. By contrast, ConAgra received\n 103 NRs in 2001 and 43 through August 2002.\n\n Prior Criticisms of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 Oversight of HACCP\n\n In 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that weaknesses\n in FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 training for its inspectors affected its ability to ensure consistent\n and effective oversight of HACCP.5 The following year, an OIG report\n identified shortcomings in plants\xe2\x80\x99 HACCP plans and deficiencies in FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n oversight of HACCP\xe2\x80\x99s implementation.6\n\n To help address these problems, FSIS stepped up its inspector training\n and initiated reviews of inspection practices in selected districts and of\n HACCP plans in plants with serious safety problems. In addition to the\n food safety system correlation reviews and indepth verification reviews,\n FSIS conducts seven other types of internal reviews to ensure their\n programs are functioning effectively. These reviews include reviews of\n agency programs, processes, and related management controls and\n reviews to assist in program planning, implementation, improvement, and\n accountability. FSIS also introduced consumer safety officers (CSO) into\n its workforce with the expertise to review the scientific soundness of\n HACCP plans. As of December 31, 2002, about 105 individuals were\n trained as CSOs.\n\n Science Testing and E. Coli\n\n According to CDC, E. coli O157:H7 is an emerging cause of foodborne\n illness.7 An estimated 73,000 cases of infection and 61 deaths occur in\n the United States each year. Most illness has been associated with eating\n undercooked, contaminated ground beef. Although the number of\n organisms required to cause the disease is not known, it is suspected to\n be very small. E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the\n bacterium Escherichia coli. Although most strains are harmless and live in\n the intestines of healthy humans and animals, the O157:H7 strain\n produces a powerful toxin and can cause severe illness.\n\n On October 17, 1994, FSIS began a microbiological testing program for\n E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. The objective of the testing program\n\n4\n FSIS defines large plants as those employing 500 or more employees.\n5\n GAO/RCED-00-16, Meat and Poultry: Improved Oversight and Training Will Strengthen New Food\nSafety System, dated December 8, 1999.\n6\n OIG Report No. 24001-3-At, Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System,\ndated June 2000.\n7\n CDC Disease Information, Escherichia coli O157:H7, website.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 4\n\x0c was to detect E. coli O157:H7 and to \xe2\x80\x9cstimulate industry action to reduce\n the presence of the pathogen in raw ground beef.\xe2\x80\x9d In 1998, when the\n HACCP program was initiated, FSIS expanded the objectives of the\n testing program to include verification that the plant\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP system was\n effective. Under the testing program, 600 tests are randomly scheduled at\n establishments producing raw ground beef each month.\n\n ConAgra was generally exempted from the testing program because it\n used its own validated pathogen reduction interventions on beef\n carcasses.8 ConAgra routinely verified the effectiveness of the\n interventions by testing for E. coli O157:H7 on carcasses and prevented\n the use of boneless beef or carcasses from outside sources.\n Consequently, since 1998 there were only four FSIS tests of raw ground\n beef taken at ConAgra before the recall. One sample was discarded and\n three tested negative. ConAgra did not test for E. coli O157:H7 in its\n ground beef products.\n\n The Recall Process\n\n If an HACCP system fails and adulterated or misbranded products are\n identified in commerce, FSIS will seek voluntary recalls of the affected\n products. Although recalls are voluntary, FSIS oversees all recall\n activities by official meat and poultry firms. FSIS also has the authority to\n detain and seize adulterated or misbranded products, if necessary.\n\n When determining the need for a recall, the FSIS Recall Management\n Division (RMD) assembles a recall committee. The committee is made up\n of representatives of various FSIS divisions who oversee the recall.\n Typically, recalls include a hazard evaluation, a recall classification, a\n recall recommendation, a public notification, and a recall notice report.\n The recall is followed by effectiveness checks, during which FSIS\n compliance officers determine if all distributors of the recalled product had\n been notified of the recall and if all recalled product had been withheld\n from further distribution. The recall ends when the plant that initiated the\n recall reports that the recall is completed, and when FSIS compliance and\n RMD concur that the recalling firm has made all reasonable efforts to\n recall product, and that the firm has either disposed of the product or the\n product is under company or FSIS control. FSIS then notifies the firm in\n writing that the recall is closed.\n\n In 2002, FSIS added regulations that call for an information-sharing\n process between Federal and State governments during a recall. Under\n these new regulations, FSIS would give States a distribution list of the\n\n8\n This exemption was provided for by FSIS Directive 10,010.1 (Microbiological Testing Program for E. coli\nO157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef), dated February 1, 1998.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 5\n\x0c customers of a firm that is recalling meat products in those States. Such a\n list would help State health authorities locate and sequester recalled\n products. Because the distribution lists are confidential commercial\n information, State agencies requesting the lists are to provide a written\n agreement not to disclose such information without the firm\xe2\x80\x99s written\n permission. The new regulations were proposed in an April 2002 Federal\n Register, and the accompanying memorandums of understanding\n between FSIS and the six participating States were not signed until\n September 2002.\n\n The Federal Manager\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires that\n agencies evaluate their systems of management controls and report any\n material weaknesses identified in its fiscal year 2002 report to the Office of\n the Chief Financial Officer. FSIS reported that they had no material\n weaknesses and their management control systems generally complied\n with the FMFIA.\n\n Our overall audit objective was to respond to a\n OBJECTIVES Congressional request to evaluate FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 recall\n system in light of widespread publicity and\n criticism related to the recent ConAgra recall\n and to identify potential threats to consumers. Specifically, our objectives\n were to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Determine whether FSIS was aware of potential problems at ConAgra\n that could lead to a recall;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Determine the effectiveness of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 response regarding the ConAgra\n recall, specifically whether FSIS followed its existing procedures (see\n exhibit B); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identify any improvements needed to better protect consumers.\n\n The Congressional request also asked us to examine two other areas:\n USDA\xe2\x80\x99s program for recalling meat and poultry products, and the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s progress in addressing problems identified in our 2000\n review of the implementation of the HACCP program, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n determinations of U.S.-equivalency of food safety systems in foreign\n countries, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 program for testing pathogens, and the effectiveness of\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 compliance activities. These two additional areas of the\n Congressional request are being addressed in separate audits and our\n conclusions about them will be reported under separate covers.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 6\n\x0c The audit fieldwork was conducted at the FSIS\n SCOPE National Office in Washington, D.C.; the\n Boulder, Colorado, and Minneapolis,\n Minnesota, District Offices; and three plant\n locations. Other sites were visited as needed (see exhibit A for a\n complete list of the locations visited). We reviewed FSIS policies and\n procedures at the National Office and district offices visited. We focused\n our review on regulations and procedures related to production of beef\n products.\n\n Records we reviewed at ConAgra generally covered the period April\n through August of 2002, but longer periods were reviewed when deemed\n necessary.\n\n The fieldwork was conducted during the period August 2002 through\n March 2003. We conducted this audit in accordance with Government\n Auditing Standards.\n\n To accomplish our audit objectives we\n METHODOLOGY performed the following fieldwork:\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We analyzed documents and conducted interviews with FSIS\n Headquarters officials;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We contacted officials of the food industry and representatives of\n USDA\xe2\x80\x99s Agricultural Research Service (ARS);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We reviewed FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 regulations, instructions, procedures, and studies;\n published reports; media releases; and other Government reviews and\n studies; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We conducted site visits to the FSIS National Office, FSIS Technical\n Service Center (TSC), district offices, and industry plants for review\n and analysis.\n\n Our reviews at the plant locations included evaluation of the plants\xe2\x80\x99 written\n SSOPs, HACCP plans, pathogen testing procedures, responses to FSIS\n NRs, procedures followed for the recalls, and returned product\n procedures. Our evaluation of the HACCP plans included an indepth\n review with the assistance of technical experts from the FSIS TSC. We\n also toured the plant locations and observed plant operations, including\n pre-operational cleanup procedures and monitoring activities at the\n designated CCPs. We made a detailed review of the HACCP processing\n records, production records, NRs, microbiological testing records from\n both ConAgra and Warren Analytical Laboratory, and records associated\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 7\n\x0c with the recall at ConAgra. Recall related records reviewed included\n customer notifications, records of recovered product, and effectiveness\n checks.\n\n The sites selected for review included the ConAgra plant involved in the\n recall and two meat grinding facilities that used ConAgra products in their\n process, specifically Galligan and Montana Quality Foods. The following\n table provides the most important statistics about these establishments:\n\n Figure 1: Vital Statistics of Sites Visited\n Plant Estimated Production\n ConAgra An average of 5,200 head of fat cattle are slaughtered and\n Establishment No. 969 fabricated each day. This produces about 2.1 million pounds of\n Greeley, Colorado boxed beef and 1 million pounds of boneless beef trim daily. Of\n this 1 million pounds of boneless beef trim, 350,000 pounds is\n used for ground beef production within the establishment,\n 100,000 pounds is rendered for technical fat, and 550,000\n pounds is sold to other processors. Variety meat production\n (hearts, livers, head meat items, tripe, etc.) adds an additional\n 270,000 pounds of production each day.\n\n Galligan Wholesale The plant does not have a slaughter operation. During a\n Meat Company, month, it processes about 10,000 pounds of ground beef,\n Establishment 10,000 pounds of ham product, 1,000 pounds of sausage, and\n No. 6475 smaller amounts of beef patties, Salisbury Steaks, and chicken.\n Denver, Colorado\n Montana Quality The plant normally slaughters 12-15 head per day and, during\n Foods & Processing, busy times, slaughters 20-25 head per day. Slaughter\n Inc. operations are conducted only 1 day per week. The plant\n Establishment produces about 700,000 pounds of product annually.\n No. 7679\n Miles City, Montana\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 8\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n AVAILABLE INDICATORS BEFORE THE RECALL\nCHAPTER 1 SHOWED THAT E. COLI O157:H7 CONTAMINATION\n WAS A PROBLEM AT CONAGRA\n\n\n Neither ConAgra nor FSIS effectively fulfilled their responsibilities under\n HACCP. Data existed prior to the recall that showed E. coli O157:H7\n contamination was a continuing problem at ConAgra. ConAgra did not\n design or reassess its food safety system to ensure it operated in\n compliance with SSOP and HACCP requirements. FSIS lacks a process\n to accumulate, review, and analyze all data available to them to monitor\n and assess plant compliance. We consider this a material weakness in\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 inspection and verification activities. FSIS needs to be more\n proactive in seeking access to all available sources of plant data and in\n analyzing the data\xe2\x80\x99s importance as indicators of problems. Also, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n written and unwritten policy to defer to the plant to detect and control any\n contamination precluded FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 inspectors from making their own early\n detection of the contaminant and limiting any recall.\n\n Under the science-based HACCP system, FSIS tests for pathogens, such\n as E. coli O157:H7, at establishments that purchase and process beef.\n FSIS schedules 600 random nationwide E. coli pathogen tests on ground\n beef each month, and some meat processors, like ConAgra, perform their\n own pathogen tests on carcasses. We found several weaknesses in\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 role in the pathogen testing and in implementing the HACCP system\n at ConAgra.\n\n FSIS tests at ConAgra. FSIS had relinquished its testing of most of the\n beef production process at ConAgra and determined it had no clear\n authority to review non-Government testing results even though it\n knew the tests showed the presence of the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen.\n Under FSIS policy, plants like ConAgra were encouraged to perform\n their own pathogen tests on beef carcasses, allowing them to be\n exempt from FSIS random testing.9 Moreover, FSIS did not test beef\n trim (an ingredient in ground beef) and did not ask ConAgra to share\n\n9\n During the recall, FSIS revoked its policy of exempting plants from random testing. Ground beef\nproducts from all plants, including ConAgra, are now tested routinely for E. coli O157:H7.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 9\n\x0c its test results on trim because FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy was unclear on whether to\n consider contaminated trim as adulterated.\n\n ConAgra tests for generic E. coli. FSIS requires plants like ConAgra to\n routinely monitor the presence of generic E. coli on beef carcasses.\n (Generic E. coli is naturally occurring, but large amounts of the microbe\n indicate a potential problem with the plant\xe2\x80\x99s control of fecal\n contamination.) For 2002, ConAgra increased the amount of generic\n E. coli it would tolerate in its product, but FSIS did not question this\n increase.\n\n ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan. ConAgra managers designed their HACCP\n plan under the flawed assumption that the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen\n was unlikely to occur in their product, and they did not alter this\n assumption in spite of growing evidence that the pathogen was\n contaminating their beef and that their HACCP system was not\n controlling the contamination. Although aware that there was a\n contamination problem, FSIS inspectors did not ask to see evidence of\n the contamination to determine how severe the problem was.\n\n Recurring fecal contamination. Although animal feces on product was\n repeatedly observed during production at ConAgra, and although FSIS\n notified ConAgra of these repeated violations, FSIS took no\n enforcement action. (Animal feces is one source of the E. coli\n O157:H7 pathogen.) FSIS has issued no guidance on what constitutes\n an excessive number of violations and requires enforcement.\n\n FSIS management and supervision of the ConAgra inspection team was\n inadequate. Supervisors were not always responsive to the inspectors\xe2\x80\x99\n concerns relating to increasing levels of fecal contamination and positive\n E. coli testing results. FSIS management reviews could have been used\n to determine that the contamination problem at ConAgra was severe, but\n FSIS did not perform any of these reviews at ConAgra.\n\n As a result of unclear FSIS policy and\n FINDING NO. 1 regulations, FSIS had relinquished its testing\n of most of the ground beef production\nFSIS DID NOT REVIEW TEST DATA process at ConAgra and determined it had\n AT CONAGRA THAT SHOWED no clear authority to review non-HACCP test\nE. COLI O157:H7 CONTAMINATION results that it knew showed the presence of\n E. coli O157:H7. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy was not to test\n the beef cuts used in the production of\n ground beef, and it did not exercise its prerogative to test the ground beef\n itself during processing. Because of these policy decisions on the part of\n FSIS, the agency was forced to rely solely on ConAgra to identify the\n presence of E. coli O157:H7 in its product and to eliminate the pathogen.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 10\n\x0c Also, ConAgra was able to claim proprietary interest in many other test\n results. Without access to the ConAgra test results, FSIS could not\n ensure that all potentially adulterated products had been recalled from\n commerce.\n\n Pathogen testing can take several forms: FSIS can test samples of its own\n selection; plants can test samples either for HACCP purposes or for\n in-plant purposes; and trim beef buyers (processors, distributors, etc.) can\n have tests performed at their own expense. ConAgra owned and\n operated its own testing laboratory and used it for its own test samples, for\n HACCP test samples, and for tests requested by its customers.\n\n a. FSIS Had Not Clarified Requirements For Testing Beef Trim\n\n Beef trim. FSIS had not clarified the actions field inspectors are to take\n when trim containing E. coli O157:H7 is considered adulterated (used\n in making ground beef). In 1994, FSIS notified the public that raw\n ground beef products contaminated with the pathogen E. coli were\n adulterated unless the ground beef was further processed to destroy\n the pathogen. On January 19, 1999, FSIS announced that the policy\n on ground beef would be expanded to all non-intact beef product,\n including beef trim that would subsequently be used to produce raw\n ground beef.10 However, in its March 15, 1999, publication,\n Constituent Update, FSIS explained the agency would not act on its\n January 19, 1999, policy statement until it had an opportunity to\n consider the comments received. This information was also included\n in a notice in the Federal Register.11\n\n We found no subsequent instructions addressing the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n proposed policy that beef trimmings contaminated with E. coli O157:H7\n would be considered adulterated. The agency did not develop any\n nationwide system to test beef trim for E. coli O157:H7, and it did not\n provide inspectors-in-charge (IIC), circuit supervisors, and district office\n personnel with instructions for implementing the policy specified in the\n Federal Register. Also, on October 7, 2002, the agency stated in a\n Federal Register Notice (Vol. 67, No. 194) that the agency\xe2\x80\x99s policy\n regarding beef trim had been in effect since January 1999.\n\n\n\n\n10\n Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 11, 2803, (Beef Products Contaminated with E. coli O157:H7), dated\nJanuary 19, 1999.\n11\n Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 29, 6881, (Recent Developments Regarding Beef Products Contaminated\nwith E. coli O157:H7; Public Meeting), dated February 11, 2000.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 11\n\x0c Ground beef. As a result of an FSIS policy to encourage plants to take\n greater responsibility for the wholesomeness of their product, FSIS\n developed procedures12 that may have limited its ability to identify\n products containing pathogens.13 Under these procedures, FSIS\n inspection personnel typically did not collect raw ground beef samples\n to be tested for E. coli O157:H7 at plants, such as ConAgra, that have\n pathogen reduction interventions of their own (see Finding No. 11). In\n lieu of pulling a sample for FSIS testing when a sampling request was\n received, FSIS policy limited inspectors to reviewing plant records for\n positive test results on carcasses within the last 6 months. If a positive\n test result had occurred on carcasses, FSIS would then perform its\n own test on ground beef for E. coli O157:H7. Since testing of\n carcasses is considered to be performed under the HACCP plan, the\n test results were available to FSIS. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling plan prohibits the\n inspectors from drawing ground beef samples on their own. Since\n ConAgra had no positive test results on carcasses for 2 years prior to\n the recall, this accounts for the low number of FSIS ground beef tests\n (only two were performed since September 2000) performed at\n ConAgra.\n\n b. Under Existing FSIS Policy, ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP Tests Did Not Need To\n Reflect the Information Derived From non-HACCP Sources\n\n ConAgra normally produced about 1 million pounds of boneless beef\n trim14 each day yet, under its HACCP plan, it was required to test only\n beef carcasses. These tests (available to the inspectors) had not\n disclosed any positive E. coli O157:H7 results for 2 years before the\n recall. By contrast, non-HACCP tests of beef trim taken by ConAgra in\n 2002 alone showed at least 63 positives before the expanded recall\n and 115 total positives (in trim, one ground beef sample tested by\n FSIS, and the plant environment) through October 21, 2002.\n\n Regulations do not specifically require plants to share the results of\n tests that are not called for in the HACCP plan. The IIC at ConAgra\n said the plant voluntarily shared positive test information with him from\n both its tests and its customers\xe2\x80\x99 tests, but this was usually oral\n information or summary information, never detailed laboratory test\n results. The IIC took no action on the positive test information because\n he understood it was FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy not to monitor or rely on non-HACCP\n\n12\n FSIS Directive 10,010.1, (Microbiological Testing Program For E. coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef),\ndated February 1, 1998.\n13\n This condition was reported in our prior report (Finding No. 5), Audit Report No. 24001-3-At,\nImplementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System, dated June 2000.\n14\n This 1 million pounds of boneless beef trim is used for ground beef production (350,000 pounds) within\nthe establishment, rendered for technical fat (100,000 pounds), or sold to other further processors\n(550,000 pounds) per day.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 12\n\x0c tests conducted by plants. Such tests posed problems, foremost of\n which was FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 inability to establish a chain of custody to verify the\n samples had not been tampered with. The IIC also noted that during\n an October 2000 work meeting at the Boulder Office, a representative\n of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 TSC told the group that if a plant tests on its own, finds\n problems, and takes appropriate action then FSIS will not become\n involved. The district office gave similar instructions.\n\n c. FSIS Did Not Require ConAgra to Disclose Non-HACCP Test Results\n\n Current FSIS policy and regulations do not require ConAgra to provide\n information on internal test results to FSIS inspectors at the plant. In\n cases where a plant\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan contains provisions that would\n allow an inspector to see non-HACCP test results, FSIS would have\n the authority to review them. But there is currently no requirement that\n HACCP plans contain this provision and, under current policy, the\n inspectors would not request the information.\n\n FSIS National Office officials said a change to the regulations might be\n possible but questioned the need for it. One official said the Federal\n Meat Inspection Act (Act) was sufficiently broad to give FSIS access to\n all records of a plant pertinent to food safety, including non-HACCP\n internal test results. Another official said that he believed the Act\n allowed FSIS to require plants to make their test results available to\n FSIS personnel. National Office officials noted that compliance officers\n had access to more plant records than inspectors did and that FSIS\n also had subpoena authority. Headquarters officials questioned if\n knowing plant test results would be of value and noted such\n requirements could hamper FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 efforts to have plants do more\n testing on their own.\n\n We believe FSIS needs to have immediate access to all data\n necessary to evaluate the adequacy of a plant\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of\n HACCP and the effectiveness of the plant at reducing or eliminating\n contaminants. Had FSIS reviewed and analyzed all test results at\n ConAgra, the increase in positive E. coli O157:H7 results may have\n been noted and acted upon.\n\n d. Guidance Is Needed on FSIS Access to \xe2\x80\x9cCustomer Tests\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Officials of two nationwide fast food chains informed us that they\n require microbiological tests as part of their normal purchasing\n process. These tests include E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, and\n Salmonella. From June 1, 2001, through August 30, 2002, ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s\n customers paid for about 1,400 of these tests, which ConAgra calls\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 13\n\x0c \xe2\x80\x9ccustomer tests.\xe2\x80\x9d No policy offers guidance on FSIS access to these\n tests.\n\n The scope of our audit at ConAgra was initially impaired because we\n were unable to review detailed laboratory beef trim microbiological test\n results performed for customers. ConAgra stated the test results could\n not be provided because they were considered the property of\n customers and disclosure was prohibited by corporate policy. The\n laboratory that performed the tests also refused to provide the test\n results. Laboratory officials stated that customer test results were\n considered confidential and could only be obtained through or with the\n permission of the customers. Officials further stated that maintaining\n the confidentiality of test results was a condition of their International\n Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025 accreditation.\n\n We were subsequently able to review the test results after obtaining\n written permission from the customers. The test results showed that\n over the 3-month period of the expanded recall (April 12 through\n July 11, 2002) there were 63 positive test results for E. coli O157:H7 in\n ConAgra beef trim. In addition, during the recall period, there were\n three additional environmental E. coli O157:H7 positive results found at\n the plant. Since the end of the recall period (July 12 through October\n 21, 2002), we were provided information showing that there had been\n an additional 49 E. coli O157:H7 positives in its trim and ground beef.\n\n Other sources showed variable results. FSIS cited in the NOIE that\n tests over the 5-week period May 20 through June 29, 2002, the\n ConAgra plant had 33 positive E. coli O157:H7 tests in its trim. An\n FSIS food safety inspection team found that over the 3-month period of\n the expanded recall, there were 59 positive E. coli O157:H7 tests in its\n customers\xe2\x80\x99 trim. From April 12, 2002, through October 21, 2002, OIG\n noted at least 115 E. coli O157:H7 positives (including food contact\n surfaces) at the ConAgra plant.\n\n When FSIS does not have access to customer test results, it cannot\n ensure that contaminated product is removed from commerce if those\n test results show the presence of the E. coli pathogen in the product.\n We encountered one condition under which contaminated product was\n redirected by ConAgra and FSIS was unable to verify its disposition\n because it was unaware of the movements of the product. Regulations\n require that if a consignee of allegedly adulterated product, which\n bears an official inspection legend, refuses to accept delivery of the\n product on the grounds that it is adulterated, the consignee shall notify\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 14\n\x0c the IIC of the kind, quantity, source, and present location of the\n product.15\n\n ConAgra considered test results of beef trim leaving its plant to be the\n property of the customers. The customers considered that the title of\n product did not pass until a negative test result was provided. If the\n test was positive, the product was considered to remain the property of\n ConAgra, even if the product was located on a truck parked on the\n customer\xe2\x80\x99s premises. Accordingly, neither ConAgra nor the customer\n believed they were obliged to notify FSIS of the adulterated product.\n\n To illustrate, we noted from ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s returned products log, during\n the period covered by the recall, that there were 10 instances totaling\n about 118,000 pounds of beef trim where product was rerouted\n because of positive test results. Instead of having the products\n returned to its plant, ConAgra redirected the questionable lots of beef\n trim products to other processors and warehouses. According to\n ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s records, the products for these 10 instances were shown to\n have been ultimately sent to processors for rendering, even though\n there was no evidence that FSIS was notified of their contamination or\n that it verified the products were handled properly. In addition, we\n further noted from ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s returned product logs that there were\n 12 instances between July 12, 2002, and July 25, 2002 (after the\n period covered by the recall), where ConAgra had approximately\n 204,000 pounds of beef products reboxed at a warehouse for\n distribution to cookers because of positive test results. Again, there\n was no evidence that FSIS was notified and, therefore, it did not verify\n the disposition of the product.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 access to pathogen tests performed by establishments has been a\n continuing concern of OIG.16 In our prior report, we recommended that\n FSIS expand the Grant of Inspection (1) to provide clear authority for\n Government oversight of all plant pathogen testing and (2) to include the\n requirements and responsibilities of the plant under the HACCP program\n and FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 oversight authority. In a December 7, 2001, response, FSIS\n stated that it did not believe that changing the Grant of Inspection to\n provide FSIS with clear authority or to include the plant\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities\n was the most practical approach to enforcement. FSIS officials stated that\n they would provide OIG with an alternative action, but to date no\n alternative action has been proposed.\n\n\n15\n 9 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 320.7, Reports By Consignees Of Allegedly Adulterated Or\nMisbranded Products; Sale Or Transportation As Violations. (All citations of 9 CFR are as of\nJanuary 1, 2002, unless otherwise noted.)\n16\n Audit Report No. 24001-3-At, Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System,\ndated June 2000.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 15\n\x0c After the recall, FSIS announced plans to initiate corrective action on\n some of the conditions described above (see exhibit B). We concluded\n that more needs to be done. FSIS can only meet its food safety\n responsibilities by being fully aware of all microbial problems that plants\n are experiencing, whether through its own tests or those taken by the\n plant for HACCP or non-HACCP purposes. FSIS needs to emphasize,\n either through its Grant of Inspection or through regulations and policy,\n that FSIS has an oversight responsibility in the production of beef products\n and has significant authority in fulfilling that responsibility, including the\n authority to access any and all pathogen tests taken by the establishment.\n\n Provide clear authority for FSIS access to all\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 internal and external plant pathogen and\n microbial testing results, including tests\n performed for customers or where title has not\n passed.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n The Federal Meat Inspection Act provides authority for FSIS to access all\n plant generated pathogen testing results. On October 7, 2002, Federal\n Register Notice 62325, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef Products,\xe2\x80\x9d\n was issued (Enclosure No. 1), which reminded establishments of their\n responsibility to keep records, including records concerning plant testing,\n and other pre-requisite program data, as part of ongoing verification of the\n plant\xe2\x80\x99s hazard analysis and 9 CFR Part 417.5, Records. FSIS inspection\n personnel have access to external testing results, which are available via\n the records associated with the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s shipping and receiving\n plans. Inspection personnel are expected to review records as they\n perform daily inspection procedures to verify whether HACCP regulatory\n requirements are being met. Establishments\xe2\x80\x99 shipping and receiving plan\n will identify the testing requirements that must be met. FSIS inspection\n personnel can review the results. It is also expected that FSIS inspection\n personnel will initiate appropriate action if records are not made available\n to FSIS.\n\n In the event that enforcement is initiated, plant generated data become an\n important indicator of whether and how well the plant is executing\n corrective actions. As such, when the decision is made to defer\n enforcement or hold a suspension in abeyance based on an\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s proposed corrective measures, as part of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n verification activities, Compliance Officers (CO) and CSOs will review\n plant data bi-weekly, or monthly, in collaboration with in-plant personnel\n and provide recommendations to the District Manager as to whether\n further enforcement is warranted.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 16\n\x0c During the week of April 28-May 2, 2003, a compliance training session\n was held in Dallas, Texas. All COs and CSOs who are being cross\n utilized to carry out compliance duties received training regarding verifying\n plant data associated with enforcement actions. Participants were also\n advised that FSIS will issue an administrative subpoena to access records\n when a plant is unwilling to share testing data. As such, participants were\n instructed to contact their supervisor for further direction if they encounter\n plants unwilling to share their testing results with FSIS. Enclosure No. 2\n contains the agenda for the compliance training session.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot accept management decision because FSIS has not\n addressed the issue of inspector access to external test results performed\n for customers. Also, the corrective actions described, as related to\n enforcement action and administrative subpoenas, are applicable to\n situations where violations have already occurred. Our recommendation\n is intended to ensure that inspectors have ready access to all microbial\n and pathogen tests conducted by establishments on a routine basis as\n part of normal inspection procedures, not just when enforcement actions\n are initiated. During the audit, it was the position of ConAgra and its\n testing laboratory that test results for tests performed for customers were\n confidential, and could not be disclosed without the customer\xe2\x80\x99s\n permission. To determine the recall period, FSIS was provided only a\n summary of such test results prepared by ConAgra; FSIS was not\n provided the actual test results. OIG obtained the test results after getting\n a written release from the customers. To reach management decision for\n this recommendation, FSIS needs to provide clarification on how FSIS\n inspectors will gain access to actual customer test results on a routine\n basis, without the need for a written customer release or administrative\n subpoena.\n\n Require plants to notify FSIS of internal and\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 external test results, especially positive test\n results for E. coli O157:H7. Instruct\n establishments to notify FSIS when\n adulterated E. coli O157:H7 product enters the plant, regardless of\n whether title to the product did or did not pass, and when the product is\n disposed of rather than returned to the plant.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS has informed beef establishments that their food safety systems for\n controlling E. coli O157:H7 must be reassessed. On October 7, 2002,\n Federal Register Notice 62325, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef\n Products,\xe2\x80\x9d (Enclosure No. 1) was issued to advise establishments of their\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 17\n\x0c obligation to reassess their HACCP plans for raw beef products. The\n Federal Register Notice also announced the availability of guidance\n materials for industry. In the Notice, FSIS advised establishments about\n disregarding the testing results of trim from one product lot to another.\n FSIS noted that it expects establishments to have a scientific basis that\n justifies why any raw ground product produced from trim that was found to\n be positive for E. coli O157:H7 should not be considered to be\n adulterated. The Notice provided a notification to establishments that\n FSIS will be increasing its scrutiny of food safety systems that test\n product. FSIS does not believe that further evaluation of the issue of\n notification of FSIS about positive results is warranted.\n\n Consequently, FSIS disagrees that the notification is needed. FSIS\n believes that the recommendation should be restated to require specific\n instructions for FSIS personnel to effectively monitor and verify the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s handling of E. coli O157:H7 contaminated beef products.\n Specifically, 9 CFR Part 417.5, Records, outlines all record-keeping\n requirements. FSIS inspection personnel have access to internal and\n external testing results, which are available via the records associated\n with the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s shipping and receiving plans. Inspection\n personnel are required to review records as they perform daily inspection\n procedures to verify whether HACCP regulatory requirements are being\n met. Establishments\xe2\x80\x99 shipping and receiving plan will identify the testing\n requirements that must be met. FSIS inspection personnel can review all\n sampling results. It is also expected that FSIS inspection personnel will\n initiate appropriate action if records are not made available to FSIS.\n\n FSIS will provide further guidance to industry and instructions to\n inspection program personnel on prudent measures to ensure that this\n product is diverted to other ready-to-eat product or for cooking. FSIS will\n address this issue in the new 10,010.1 Directive to be issued by\n October 2003.\n\n By December 2003, FSIS will fully implement guidelines that address the\n responsibility of FSIS personnel to take control and monitor product that\n has tested positive, from both internal and external test results, for E. coli\n O157:H7. This will enhance the utilization of existing regulatory\n authorities pertaining to pre-shipment reviews, returned goods, hazard\n analysis and assessing the plant\xe2\x80\x99s decision-making documents related to\n these activities.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We agree with the actions proposed by FSIS to develop and implement\n guidelines that address the responsibility of FSIS personnel to take control\n and monitor product that has tested positive for E. coli O157:H7.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 18\n\x0c However, we cannot reach management decision because FSIS has not\n addressed the need to require plants to notify FSIS of internal and\n external test results, especially internal and external positive test results\n for E. coli O157:H7. FSIS is placing sole responsibility on the inspector to\n identify product that tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 by increasing\n scrutiny of food safety systems through periodic monitoring of shipping\n and receiving documents. The principles of HACCP assign dual\n responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat products. Therefore, OIG\n continues to believe that FSIS must place responsibility on the plant to\n timely notify FSIS when testing results identify the presence of a pathogen\n in the product, especially shipped lots. To reach management decision,\n FSIS needs to provide its rationale for why plants should not be held\n responsible for notifying FSIS when positive test results occur. Also,\n without routine access to external test results (see OIG Position,\n Recommendation No. 1) FSIS needs to provide a detailed description of\n the control processes that will be implemented to assure that positive test\n results are reflected in plant shipping and receiving documents.\n\n Issue policies that clarify to inspectors the\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 authority for FSIS to consider E. coli O157:H7\n in beef trim destined for grinding to be\n adulterated. Devise a risk-based sampling\n plan to select and test beef trim for pathogens.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS will address the issue of sampling trim in the revised Directive\n 10,010.1 to be issued by October 2003. The revised Directive provides for\n FSIS sampling of trim at Federal establishments.\n\n On October 7, 2002, Federal Register Notice 62325, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7\n Contamination of Beef Products,\xe2\x80\x9d (Enclosure No. 1) was issued to direct\n establishments to reassess their HACCP plans for raw beef products. The\n Federal Register Notice also announced the availability of guidance\n materials for industry and discussed revisions to be made to FSIS\n Directive, 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing Program For Escherichia coli\n O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d In the Notice, FSIS provided notification\n that establishments that receive product for grinding must address E. coli\n O157:H7. Establishments were instructed to employ validated CCPs in\n their HACCP plans to address E. coli O157:H7. On November 4, 2002,\n FSIS issued FSIS Notice 44-02 (Enclosure No. 3), \xe2\x80\x9cInstructions for\n Verifying E. coli O157:H7 Reassessment.\xe2\x80\x9d This Notice provided\n inspection personnel instructions for performing verification of E. coli\n O157:H7 reassessments. These documents clarify FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 position that\n E. coli O157:H7 in beef trim destined for grinding is considered to be\n adulterated.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 19\n\x0c OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n FSIS did not enforce a requirement that\n FINDING NO. 2 ConAgra reassess its HACCP plan even\n though evidence showed that fecal\n HACCP PLANS WERE NOT contamination was becoming an increasing\n REASSESSED WHEN E. COLI problem at the plant. ConAgra managers\n PATHOGEN BECAME AN concluded that the amount of E. coli O157:H7\n INCREASING PROBLEM being detected did not warrant their revising\n the HACCP plan or making significant\n operational changes. FSIS inspectors were\n aware that a problem existed, but they did not pursue the issue to apprise\n themselves of the full extent of the contamination because they believed\n the product tested (beef trim) was not within their authority under HACCP\n (see Finding No. 1). As a result, ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan remained largely\n unchanged, and the plant continued to operate under ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s\n assumption that contamination of its product by the E. coli O157:H7\n pathogen was unlikely to occur.\n\n Regulations require plants to conduct reassessments of their HACCP\n plans when food safety hazards are found in their finished product.17\n\n Prior to the recall, ConAgra did not design or reassess its food safety\n system to ensure it operated in compliance with SSOP and HACCP\n requirements. In response to the recall and subsequent enforcement\n actions by FSIS, ConAgra reassessed its HACCP plans and with\n concurrence of FSIS, implemented a number of interventions (e.g., the\n use of lactic acid in ground beef) to reduce the occurrence of E. coli\n O157:H7. The actions taken by ConAgra both prior to and after the recall,\n however, did not provide assurance that physical and biological hazards to\n the production process had been identified and controlled.\n\n We reviewed ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP records for the period April through\n August 2002\xe2\x80\x94before and during the recall. These records showed that\n the company\xe2\x80\x99s acceptable quality level checks were identifying fecal\n contamination in products on a regular basis. For the 5-month period we\n reviewed, fecal contamination was found in 23 instances in the slaughter\n department and in 187 instances in the variety meat department.\n ConAgra HACCP records also showed that E. coli O157:H7 was being\n found at an increasing rate at ConAgra beginning in April 2002. The\n record of fecal contamination in the HACCP logs combined with the\n\n17\n 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3), Reassessment of the HACCP plan, dated January 1, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 20\n\x0c increasing number of positive test results for the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen\n found in the beef trim indicates that the company should have reassessed\n its HACCP plans before the recall.\n Figure 2: ConAgra Tests for Customers Showing the Presence of E. coli O157:H7\n Number of Number of Percent Positive\n Week of: Lots Tested Positive Tests Tests\n April 2 112 0 0.00%\n April 8 107 1 0.93%\n April 15 105 4 3.81%\n April 22 152 0 0.00%\n April 29 131 2 1.53%\n May 6 105 0 0.00%\n May 13 110 1 0.91%\n May 20 124 6 4.84%\n May 28 92 5 5.43%\n June 3 139 3 2.16%\n June 10 156 13 8.33%\n June 17 152 3 1.97%\n June 24 155 9 5.81%\n July 1 268 3 1.12%\n July 8 269 17 6.32%\n July 15 305 11 3.61%\n July 22 348 7 2.01%\n July 29 491 2 0.41%\n\n By contrast, the positive test results from FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 nationwide testing\n program was less than 1 percent.18\n\n HACCP records showed that ConAgra reassessed one of its HACCP\n plans on February 11, 2002, when a new CCP was added to the process.\n The records also showed that in April 2002, at the time the problems with\n fecal contamination and positive tests for E. coli O157:H7 were starting to\n increase, company officials did their annual review of four of their HACCP\n plans (variety meats, advanced meat recovery, ground beef, and edible\n rendering) and signed the plans to show no changes were needed.\n Instead of reassessing the HACCP plans, the company officials chose to\n consider each occurrence of the pathogen as a hazard that was unlikely to\n occur and determined there was no need to alter any operations at the\n plant. This determination was questionable based on the E. coli O157:H7\n\n\n\n\n18\n In 2001, FSIS tested 5514 samples and found that 0.87 percent tested positive. In 2002, the year of\nthe recall, FSIS tested 5430 samples (through October 10, 2002) and found that 0.88 percent tested\npositive.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 21\n\x0c testing results. ConAgra could not demonstrate that it fully analyzed why\n the E. coli O157:H7 problem continued to occur.19\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 in-plant inspectors advised us that they were aware there were\n some positive tests for E. coli O157:H7 before the recall because product\n was returned to the plant. The inspectors were informed of the\n contamination in the returned product by ConAgra officials and observed\n the product being repackaged and labeled \xe2\x80\x9cfor cooking only.\xe2\x80\x9d However,\n the positive tests were for samples of beef trim and, as noted in Finding\n No. 1, the inspectors did not ask to review the test results because they\n believed tests on beef trim were not part of the HACCP program.\n Consequently, the plant inspectors believed they could not require\n ConAgra to reassess its HACCP plans.\n\n Company officials said they would have made test results available for any\n tests taken for internal company use, if asked, and later provided the\n information to the FSIS Food Safety Investigation team and to OIG. If the\n inspectors had reviewed the test results and been fully aware of the scope\n of the problem, they may have been in a better position to take prompt\n action to enforce the relevant sections of the HACCP regulations.\n\n In response to the recall and subsequent enforcement actions by FSIS,\n ConAgra is reassessing its HACCP plans and validating the effectiveness\n of its proposed corrective actions. The process of reassessing the\n HACCP plans does not require that the underlying cause of processing\n problems be identified. The reassessment only requires that critical points\n be identified where controls can be applied to reduce or eliminate food\n safety hazards that are deemed likely to occur.\n\n We are making no recommendation related to reassessment of HACCP\n plans as these actions are underway as part of ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s response to\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 intended enforcement action. Also, FSIS published a Federal\n Register notice,20 on October 7, 2002, that required all establishments that\n produce raw beef products and that have not reassessed their HACCP\n plans in light of new scientific information21 to do so and consider whether\n\n19\n The FSIS Notice of Intended Enforcement Action, dated July 18, 2002, references 9 CFR 417.2;\n417.3(b); 417.4(a)(2); 417.4(a)(3); 417.5(a)(2) (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems); and\n416.12 and 416.14 (Sanitation). 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3), dated January 1, 2002, provides that \xe2\x80\x9cevery\nestablishment shall reassess the adequacy of the HACCP plan whenever any changes occur that could\naffect the hazard analysis\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n20\n Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 194, 62325 (E. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef Products), dated\nOctober 7, 2002.\n21\n On September 3, 1999, FSIS began using new testing procedures to detect the presence of E. coli\nO157:H7, which were four times more sensitive than the previous testing method. FSIS found that these\nnew procedures showed that the E. coli pathogen was significantly more prevalent in raw ground beef\nsamples than the previous testing method indicated. Also, some studies have found more animals within\nspecific herds to be positive for E. coli O157:H7. See the Federal Register for October 7, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 22\n\x0c E. coli O157:H7 is a hazard reasonably likely to occur. On\n November 4, 2002, FSIS issued instructions to their inspectors for\n 22\n\n verifying that all establishments affected had performed the required\n reassessment of their HACCP plans to determine if E. coli O157:H7\n contamination was a hazard likely to occur.\n\n Provide training to in-plant inspectors to\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 increase their awareness as to the availability\n of and their access to microbiological test\n results and to take appropriate action, such as\n issuing an NR when HACCP records indicate CCP failures that could\n allow contaminated product to enter commerce.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS agrees with this recommendation. On April 29, 2003, FSIS instituted\n new Food Safety Regulatory Essentials (FSRE) training designed to better\n equip inspection personnel in verifying an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s food safety\n system. Unlike initial HACCP training, the FSRE training is tailored to an\n inspector\xe2\x80\x99s assignment. All trainees receive foundation training, covering\n the Rules of Practice, Sanitation Performance Standards, and Sanitation\n Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP). Customized HACCP training is\n provided based on the types of products being produced at the\n establishments where inspectors are assigned. One of the modules was\n designed specifically to address the production of raw beef products in a\n HACCP environment at plants such as ConAgra. This specialized training\n is now being offered at the FSIS Training and Education Center in College\n Station, Texas. The training will improve FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to effectively\n monitor and verify food safety controls at plants such as ConAgra and at\n the establishments that purchase and process its beef. All inspection\n program personnel with primary duties for verification of the HACCP\n pathogen reduction program activities will be trained on the FSRE. FSIS\n expects the FSRE training to be completed for field personnel by the end\n of September 2004. Enclosure No. 4 contains the course description and\n training agendas.\n\n In addition, during the week of April 28-May 2, 2003, a compliance training\n session was held in Dallas, Texas (Enclosure No. 2). All COs and CSOs\n who are being cross utilized to conduct compliance duties attended the\n training session. One of the topics discussed at this session was the\n review and analysis of plant records and testing data and the expectation\n that COs and CSOs who have been trained in enforcement, to review\n plant data bi-weekly, or monthly, in collaboration with the in-plant\n\n22\n FSIS Notice 44-02 (Instructions for Verifying E. coli O157:H7 Reassessment), dated\nNovember 4, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 23\n\x0c personnel when enforcement at a plant has been deferred, or when a\n plant is operating under a suspension held in abeyance. Plant generated\n data is an important indicator of whether and how well the plant is\n executing its corrective actions.\n\n FSIS issued revised Directive 5000.1 (Enclosure No. 5), \xe2\x80\x9cVerifying an\n Establishment\xe2\x80\x99s Food Safety System,\xe2\x80\x9d on May 21, 2003. Attachment 1 to\n the Directive is FSIS Handbook 5000.1, which provides comprehensive\n direction to field personnel on how they are to protect the public health by\n properly verifying an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with pathogen reduction,\n sanitation, and HACCP regulations. The handbook provides additional\n guidance to inspection personnel on their authority in accessing a plant\xe2\x80\x99s\n microbiological test results and the appropriate actions to be taken to\n ensure adulterated product does not enter commerce, such as reviewing\n the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action to determine if it is appropriate and\n addressing proper product disposition.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n Develop a management control process that\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 will provide FSIS inspectors with all available\n data necessary to monitor compliance with\n HACCP requirements.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS agrees that a process is required to ensure that inspection personnel\n have all available data necessary to monitor compliance with HACCP\n requirements. FSIS inspectors have real-time access to all available\n inspection data generated for the respective establishment that they are\n working in. This data is in the PBIS database. Inspection personnel use\n this data and other sources in their verification activities.\n\n Each level of FSIS supervision has responsibilities to review data of\n operational and compliance activities. The review covers individual\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s compliance records to aggregate compliance records for\n establishments within a circuit, within a District and nationally. The\n Technical Service Center (TSC) collects and analyzes this data from a\n number of sources including PBIS. They provide reports to senior officials\n in Headquarters and at the District level. The reports include\n non-compliance summaries, sample results, trend analysis, and various\n operational data summaries.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 24\n\x0c FSIS has judiciously implemented this process to make decision-support\n information available to the inspection personnel. FSIS field personnel\n have regular access to the PBIS database and related reports. The most\n recent version of the PBIS database system (version 5.0) allows\n inspection personnel to enter and access specific non-compliance records\n (NRs) that have been issued to a plant for PR/HACCP, Sanitation\n Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP), Sanitation Performance\n Standards (SPS), and Other Consumer Protections (OCP)\n non-compliances. FSIS inspection personnel also have access to the\n Laboratory Electronic Application for Results Notification (LEARN)\n database system. The LEARN database contains laboratory testing\n results, including potential, presumptive, and positive sample results for\n raw ground and ready to eat products. These systems allow inspectors to\n monitor an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with PR/HACCP requirements.\n\n Also, FSIS has issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant Performance System\n Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory Guideline (Enclosure\n No. 6). IPPS was designed to hold inspection program personnel\n accountable and ensures that inspectors are applying the appropriate\n inspection methods, using effective regulatory decision-making, and\n documenting findings appropriately and when warranted, implementing\n enforcement actions properly.\n\n The Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review (OPEER) will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the area. Audits, evaluations, and\n reviews will be conducted to verify implementation and measure the\n effectiveness of the corrective actions.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on the information provided, we cannot reach management\n decision. In its response, FSIS states that inspectors have real-time\n access to various databases that contain inspection data and laboratory\n testing results. Also, FSIS states that each level of supervision has the\n responsibility to review the data and monitor operations and that OPEER\n will monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress. FSIS has not provided a documented\n management control program that specifies the actions required at each\n level in the organization to analyze data on a plant, district, or national\n basis, including the procedures and processes to be used by OPEER to\n \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress.\xe2\x80\x9d To reach management decision, FSIS\n needs to provide a description of its management control program to\n include details as to what actions are required at each level of the\n organization, including OPEER, and a description of the controls put in\n place to ensure the expected analysis takes place and is acted on.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 25\n\x0c FSIS did not review or monitor ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s\n FINDING NO. 3 process control criteria to determine if it was\n effective in controlling generic E. coli.\n INDICATORS OF INCREASING Although ConAgra raised its tolerance level\n LEVELS OF GENERIC E. COLI for generic E. coli between 2001 and 2002,\n WERE NOT MONITORED OR neither ConAgra nor FSIS personnel critically\n ANALYZED analyzed the increase to determine why it\n occurred and if it was acceptable. Also, FSIS\n guidance to inspectors does not specifically\n require them to verify a plant\xe2\x80\x99s methodology for determining a tolerance\n level. High levels of generic E. coli are indicative of problems in the\n plant\xe2\x80\x99s controls over fecal contamination. As a result of the change in\n tolerance, the generic E. coli testing done by ConAgra to comply with its\n HACCP plan provided erroneous results, which affected the ability of plant\n management and FSIS personnel to accurately monitor the plant\xe2\x80\x99s\n operations.\n\n In order to verify that an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s manufacturing processes are\n controlling generic E. coli, FSIS requires each establishment that\n slaughters livestock to routinely test for the generic strain of the microbe.\n Establishments like ConAgra, which base their tests on a\n carcass-sponging technique, are to evaluate generic E. coli test results\n using statistical process control techniques.23 These techniques involve\n upper control limits to the amount of generic E. coli measured in a tested\n sample. If routine test results show amounts of generic E. coli beyond this\n upper limit, FSIS plant inspectors need to increase their surveillance of\n plant operations.\n\n FSIS in-plant personnel are tasked with reviewing the generic E. coli\n testing by their establishments. As appropriate, FSIS inspectors are to\n review procedures and record keeping and make a determination about\n the plant\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with regulatory requirements.24 FSIS Directive\n 5000.1 directs the inspectors to examine the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s process\n control chart to determine if the plant is analyzing its test data against a\n baseline level \xe2\x80\x9cto ensure the process is in control and variations are within\n normal and acceptable limits.\xe2\x80\x9d25 At ConAgra, the process control chart\n depicted each test result as a point and the upper control limit as a\n horizontal line running above the points (or under them, if test results\n should begin to exceed the upper limit). The FSIS directive does not\n require the inspectors to validate the plant\xe2\x80\x99s methodology for arriving at its\n upper control limit.\n\n\n23\n 9 CFR 310.25 (Contamination with Microorganisms; Process Control Verification Criteria and Testing;\nPathogen Reduction Standards), dated January 1, 2002.\n24\n FSIS, Regulatory Process for HACCP-Based Inspection Reference Guide, dated January 1998.\n25\n FSIS Directive 5000.1 (January 1998), Part Four-E. Coli Testing and Criteria.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 26\n\x0c ConAgra chose to monitor and track its generic E. coli results by shift (shift\n A and B). ConAgra measured the amount of generic E. coli on a scale of\n 0 to 21. For calendar year 2001, the plant\xe2\x80\x99s generic E. coli upper control\n limits were low on the scale (less than 6.0) for both the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d shift and the\n \xe2\x80\x9cB\xe2\x80\x9d shift. At the beginning of calendar year 2002, the plant recomputed\n the upper control limits for both shifts based on the results from the 2001\n sampling. When the results were recomputed, the upper control limit for\n the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d shift was increased by 50 percent, while the upper control limit for\n the \xe2\x80\x9cB\xe2\x80\x9d shift was decreased by 33 percent. The horizontal line on the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d\n shift control chart was higher than before and the line on the \xe2\x80\x9cB\xe2\x80\x9d shift\n control chart was lower. Beef worked on the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d shift was therefore\n allowed to have more than twice the amount of generic E. coli than the \xe2\x80\x9cB\xe2\x80\x9d\n shift before any further tests were taken.\n\n We questioned plant management as to why, in 2002, there was such a\n pronounced difference in upper control limits between the two shifts. The\n plant managers, after some analysis, explained that upon closer review\n they concluded that their methodology for tracking the generic E. coli was\n flawed. They observed that livestock killed on both shifts ended up in data\n for both the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cB\xe2\x80\x9d shifts. This mixing of sample results from different\n shifts invalidated their results for both shifts. The plant management\n stated that they were immediately reviewing and correcting their generic\n E. coli sampling methodology.\n\n FSIS in-plant inspection personnel did not identify this problem in the\n generic E. coli sampling methodology. They also did not notice or\n question plant managers about why there was a dramatic change in the\n generic E. coli upper control limits between the two shifts during calendar\n year 2002. The increase in upper limit on the \xe2\x80\x9cA\xe2\x80\x9d shift allowed ConAgra to\n process beef carcasses with greater amounts of generic E. coli without\n triggering additional FSIS scrutiny.\n\n Verify ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s methodology for establishing\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 the upper control limit for generic E. coli.\n Require FSIS personnel to review and monitor\n all control limits established by ConAgra.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS is continuing to review and monitor Est. 969\xe2\x80\x99s control limits, as well\n as other operations in the plant as part its ongoing regulatory duties. FSIS\n has completed a verification of ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s (now Swift\xe2\x80\x99s) methodology for\n establishing the upper control limit for generic E. coli to ensure compliance\n with \xc2\xa7310.25(a)(5)(i), Table 1 of 9 CFR. On May 7, 2003, FSIS conducted\n a review and analysis of Est. 969\xe2\x80\x99s generic E. coli testing process,\n including design, execution, and test results reporting. The review was\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 27\n\x0c aimed at determining the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory compliance with\n \xc2\xa7310.25(a).\n\n Est. 969 now determines baseline standards yearly, reflecting previous\n yearly data averages. Est. 969 reviews and revises, as necessary, its\n Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) # 1128 detailing sample collection\n procedures and SOP # 1802 detailing data sampling reporting procedures.\n\n FSIS in-plant inspection team oversight and verification was accomplished\n by reviewing information from the PBIS procedures performed at Est. 969.\n PBIS verification procedures conducted from June 1, 2002, to\n May 1, 2003, included:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedure 05A01= 61 scheduled and 61 performed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedure 05A02= 49 scheduled, 43 performed and 6 not performed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A total of 104 procedures were performed.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 No noncompliance was observed for the 104 performed procedures\n during the specified time frame.\n\n The review of Est. 969\xe2\x80\x99s current documentation and operations found\n them to be in compliance with Regulation 310.25 (a). During the\n July 2002, FSIS Food Safety Investigation (FSI) at Est. 969, the FSI team\n reviewed the generic E. coli testing program, but primarily focused on the\n E. coli O157:H7 carcass program utilized by Est. 969 at that time because\n it was determined by the team to be more indicative of the health risk\n associated with the product recall. The generic E. coli testing program is\n required by regulation as an indicator of process control. However, the\n specific E. coli O157:H7 carcass program was thought to be more plant\n and program specific.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n Revise FSIS Directive 5000.1 (January 1998)\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 to require qualified FSIS personnel to\n periodically review the methodology used for\n setting generic E. coli upper control limits in all\n beef establishments.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS issued revised FSIS Directive 5000.1 (Enclosure No. 5), \xe2\x80\x9cVerifying\n an Establishment\xe2\x80\x99s Food Safety System.\xe2\x80\x9d The Directive provides\n instructions to consumer safety personnel on verifying that generic E. coli\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 28\n\x0c upper control limits in all beef establishments have been implemented as\n required by the regulation. The revised Directive was issued on\n May 21, 2003.\n\n In addition, CSOs are assigned to District Offices to conduct\n comprehensive assessments to verify that establishment control systems\n are well-documented, supported by scientific information, and validated.\n Currently, CSOs are conducting comprehensive assessments of HACCP\n plans at beef product establishments. These comprehensive\n assessments are being conducted as part of an October 7, 2002, Federal\n Register Notice, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef Products,\xe2\x80\x9d that\n required all beef slaughter establishments to reexamine their food safety\n strategies in light of evidence that E. coli was more prevalent in live\n animals than previously thought. The comprehensive examination of\n HACCP plans by CSOs at raw beef product establishments was a\n proactive step to strengthen pathogen prevention practices. Eventually all\n beef plants will be reassessed.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n FSIS did not take enforcement action against\n FINDING NO. 4 ConAgra even though it continued to cite the\n plant for HACCP violations involving visible\n RECURRING CITATIONS FOR fecal contamination of products. The\n FECAL CONTAMINATION OF inspectors continued to issue citations\n PRODUCTS AT CONAGRA DID because FSIS has not established criteria for\n NOT LEAD TO FSIS determining when repeat violations warrant\n ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS taking additional enforcement action or require\n a plant to reassess its HACCP plan. As a\n result, animal feces continued to be observed\n contaminating ConAgra product and likely contributed to the adulteration\n of product that was the subject of the recall.\n\n Because animal feces is the source of the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen and\n because it can be observed during production and removed, FSIS follows\n a \xe2\x80\x9czero tolerance\xe2\x80\x9d policy on a plant\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with this sanitation\n requirement. FSIS issues an NR for each \xe2\x80\x9czero tolerance failure\xe2\x80\x9d on the\n part of a plant.\n\n To determine the number of repeated NRs written at ConAgra for fecal\n contamination, we reviewed and summarized the NR logs for 2001 and\n 2002 (through November 14, 2002), as shown in exhibit D. The logs\n showed that the in-plant inspectors had written a total of 66 NRs for zero\n tolerance failure for the period. We were told that the number of observed\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 29\n\x0c zero tolerance failures actually exceeded the number of NRs written for\n that particular deficiency because in many cases plant inspectors\n preferred to discuss the problems with ConAgra management rather than\n write the NRs. This indicates that zero tolerance failures had been an\n ongoing problem at this plant and continued to be a problem after the\n recall period. We completed our fieldwork at the plant in September 2002.\n On November 15, 2002, FSIS suspended inspection services at the plant\n because of repetitive zero tolerance failures since August 2002. Records\n showed that FSIS had issued 16 NRs for zero tolerance failures after the\n recall. This shows that the corrective actions that were taken by the\n company were not fully effective in correcting the problem with fecal\n contamination at the plant.\n\n We interviewed the IIC concerning the NRs for HACCP failures at\n ConAgra, especially those involving fecal contamination. He said that he\n had been concerned about the high frequency of tests showing the E. coli\n pathogen in product that had occurred in the fall of 2001. By way of\n impressing on plant officials that additional action could be taken by FSIS,\n the IIC referred in each new NR to the previous NRs that reported zero\n tolerance violations. Although the IIC was not required to take a\n monitoring sample for E. coli O157:H7 testing, even under the\n circumstances, he did anyway. (The sample tested negative.) He said he\n discussed these issues weekly with plant management and had\n impressed on them that enforcement action could be taken for repetitive\n noncompliance violations.\n\n The IIC told us, however, that as far as he knew there was no magic\n number of NRs that would result in FSIS enforcement action. He said he\n had consulted the district office on what actions to take but could get no\n guidance on whether there were too many NRs for the same problem. He\n also consulted the TSC and, in the end, the district and TSC decided that\n because the plant was responsive to the NRs and because the IIC\xe2\x80\x99s\n monitoring sample tested negative, they would take no enforcement\n action.\n\n In our earlier audit of HACCP, we noted that FSIS was repeatedly issuing\n NRs for the same violation,26 and we recommended that the agency\n establish guidelines on what was an acceptable number of NRs for\n repetitive violations. In response to our audit, FSIS said they would\n develop procedures for repetitive deficiencies by December 2000. In\n September 2001,27 FSIS issued a notice providing general guidelines on\n the types of enforcement actions that may be taken and the general\n circumstances under which they would be appropriate. However, the\n26\n Audit Report No. 24001-3-At, Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System,\ndated June 2000.\n27\n FSIS Notice 36-01, Rules of Practice, dated September 5, 2001.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 30\n\x0c procedures do not provide specific criteria for determining when\n enforcement action is needed based on repetitive NRs. Also, FSIS needs\n to develop alternative enforcement actions, within its existing authorities,\n for when establishments fail to comply with established pathogen\n reduction benchmarks and/or when they are cited for repetitive food safety\n violations.\n\n More recently, GAO28 reported that in 16 plants reviewed, the most\n common repetitive deficiency reported in NRs was for violation of the zero\n tolerance standard for fecal contamination. The GAO study showed that\n FSIS had not taken enforcement action on any of the repetitive violations\n identified. GAO further noted that FSIS had not established criteria for\n inspectors to consider when assessing whether repetitive violations\n warrant enforcement action. GAO recommended that FSIS \xe2\x80\x9cestablish\n clear, consistent criteria for inspectors to use when considering whether to\n recommend suspension because of repetitive violations.\xe2\x80\x9d The report\n stated that FSIS officials recognized the need to establish such criteria\n and were in the process of updating a policy directive to include it. The\n report further stated FSIS expected to implement this directive in early\n 2003. However, the written response to the report did not provide specific\n timeframes for the planned directive changes cited.\n\n Develop and implement criteria to evaluate\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 8 repetitive noncompliance violations that\n provide a basis for determining when\n corrective actions are inadequate and\n enforcement actions should be initiated. Establish specific criteria when\n further enforcement action must be taken based on criteria established for\n repetitive violations.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n On June 17, 2002, FSIS issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant Performance\n System Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory Guideline\n (Enclosure No. 6). These documents provide specific instructions and\n guidance on how to assess the performance of inspection personnel in the\n PR/HACCP system environment and for verifying that inspection\n personnel are carrying out their responsibilities. These include having\n supervisors ensure that inspection personnel are evaluating trend\n indicators over time to determine whether to take regulatory action based\n on the establishment's performance and having supervisors assess from\n inspection records that inspection personnel are determining whether a\n trend of noncompliance that warrants the withholding of inspection is\n\n28\n GAO Report No. GAO-02-902, Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules Needed to\nReduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses, dated August 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 31\n\x0c occurring. IPPS holds inspection personnel accountable and ensures that\n the significance of repetitive noncompliance violations is not being\n overlooked.\n\n FSIS also revised FSIS Directive 5000.1 (Enclosure No. 5), \xe2\x80\x9cVerifying an\n Establishment\xe2\x80\x99s Food Safety System.\xe2\x80\x9d The revised Directive provides\n guidance for the field on how to identify repetitive deficiencies and what\n action to take in response. The revised Directive was issued on\n May 21, 2003. The Directive 5000.1 is used along with the Rules of\n Practice, 9 CFR 416 and 9 CFR 417 by the District Offices to determine\n when enforcement actions are warranted. This process has been\n implemented.\n\n On April 29, 2003, FSIS implemented new FSRE (Enclosure No. 4)\n training designed to better equip inspection personnel in verifying an\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s food safety system. The training provides guidance to\n inspection personnel for evaluating repetitive noncompliance and\n furnishes a basis for determining when corrective actions are inadequate\n and enforcement should be initiated.\n\n In addition, during the week of April 28-May 2, 2003, a compliance training\n session was held in Dallas, Texas. The Deputy District Managers of each\n District Office and several District Managers attended the session. At the\n training, FSIS stressed the importance of ensuring that FSIS verification\n plans are developed and carried out for all deferral actions and\n suspensions held in abeyance. A presentation was given which covered\n the development of FSIS verification plans and the procedures that should\n be utilized to ensure that a plant\xe2\x80\x99s corrective and preventive measures are\n effectively carried out.\n\n Furthermore, in August 2002, FSIS implemented a procedure that requires\n that whenever FSIS defers enforcement following the issuance of a Notice\n of Intended Enforcement (NOIE), or hold a suspension in abeyance, a\n written FSIS verification plan will be developed and attached to the\n deferral or suspension held in abeyance letter. The verification plan is\n also discussed with plant officials. The verification plan identifies the\n specific procedures that an FSIS in-plant inspection team will carry out to\n ensure that the establishment implements the corrective and preventive\n actions proffered to the Agency in response to a NOIE or suspension.\n The procedures in the verification plan are carried out until such time that\n the establishment can demonstrate it is capable of eliminating unsanitary\n conditions and practices and is producing product that is safe and\n sanitary. If FSIS verification activities reveal that the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n corrective and preventive measures are effective, the deferral or\n suspension being held in abeyance will be closed. On the other hand, if\n FSIS verification activities show that the plant\xe2\x80\x99s food safety controls are\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 32\n\x0c ineffective, further enforcement will be initiated.\n\n The Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review (OPEER) will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the area. Audits, evaluations, and\n reviews will be conducted to verify implementation and measure the\n effectiveness of the corrective actions.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot accept the management decision. We agree, in principal, that\n the issued directives and training will be beneficial for inspectors in\n analyzing whether a trend of noncompliance or repetitive violations has\n occurred. These procedures do not, however, provide specific criteria for\n determining when enforcement action is needed. The instructions provide\n for referring cases of trends/repetitive violations to supervisors and/or the\n district office but do not provide guidance as to when enforcement actions\n should be initiated and/or accelerated. FSIS also states that OPEER will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in this area, verify implementation, and\n measure the effectiveness of corrective actions. To reach management\n decision, FSIS needs to establish criteria to ensure consistent application\n of its enforcement actions, describe the process to be used by OPEER in\n its evaluation, and provide an estimated timeframe for implementing the\n specific actions proposed.\n\n Develop and implement alternative\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 9 enforcement tools, within existing authorities,\n when establishments fail to comply with\n established pathogen reduction benchmarks\n and/or when they are cited for repetitive food safety violations.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS believes that the concerns raised by the OIG should be directed at\n the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s need for improving its management controls and supervision\n of its inspection personnel to ensure effective enforcement of regulatory\n requirements. FSIS does not have the authority to implement civil\n penalties; however, the judicial system has imposed civil penalties for\n statutory violations. FSIS believes that the OIG recommendation should\n encourage better use of existing authorities for enforcement. Federally\n inspected establishments are required to take appropriate and effective\n corrective actions to address identified deficiencies. Further, when\n serious deficiencies are noted at establishments, FSIS will begin preparing\n an Administrative Enforcement Report (AER) that compiles all serious\n non-compliances. The AER will support the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s basis for actions\n taken, ensure uniformity and consistency, and become a part of the formal\n record for action.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 33\n\x0c To enhance the supervision of inspection program personnel and improve\n management controls, FSIS has issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant\n Performance System Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory\n Guideline (Enclosure No. 6). IPPS holds inspection program personnel\n accountable and ensures that inspectors are applying the appropriate\n inspection methods, using effective regulatory decision-making, and\n documenting findings appropriately and when warranted, implementing\n enforcement actions properly.\n\n Also, FSIS instituted new Food Safety Regulatory Essentials (FSRE)\n training designed to better equip inspection personnel in verifying an\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s food safety system. Unlike initial HACCP training, the\n FSRE training is tailored to an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s assignment. All trainees\n receive foundation training, covering the Rules of Practice, Sanitation\n Performance Standards, and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures\n (SSOP).\n\n The Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review (OPEER) will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the area. Audits, evaluations, and\n reviews will be conducted to verify implementation and measure the\n effectiveness of the corrective actions.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 response, we revised this recommendation. However, we\n cannot reach management decision. OIG believes FSIS needs additional\n enforcement tools to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.\n FSIS, in its response, has proposed the development of an Administrative\n Enforcement Report that compiles all serious non-compliances. The\n Administrative Enforcement Report is to support the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s basis for\n actions taken, ensure uniformity and consistency, and become part of the\n formal record for action. FSIS has also proposed that OPEER will monitor\n the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in this area. The intent of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s original\n recommendation was for FSIS to consider alternative enforcement actions\n for plants that have repetitive violations and/or take ineffective corrective\n actions. To reach management decision, FSIS needs to identify the\n options or alternatives available under its existing authority to address\n these situations, how it will implement them, and the timeframes for doing\n so.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 34\n\x0c ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s long history of production\n FINDING NO. 5 containing E. coli O157:H7 demonstrates the\n need for FSIS managers to strengthen\nFSIS INSPECTORS AT CONAGRA oversight and training of both FSIS and plant\n DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE staff and to achieve a culture and environment\n SUPERVISION adequate to assure food safety. We found few\n instances before the recall in which FSIS\n managers responded to inspector concerns at\n ConAgra or contacted the FSIS staff there. More recent food safety\n problems at the plant occurred in the absence of the circuit supervisor,\n who was on extended sick leave during our audit.\n\n Some of the instances and results of poor FSIS supervision at ConAgra\n are summarized below.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Although the plant\xe2\x80\x99s testing records between 2001 and 2002 showed\n an increasing presence of E. coli O157:H7 and a failing HACCP\n system, the IIC did not take any action because he could not get\n support from the TSC or the district office. (The district office could\n provide no evidence to dispute this.) The IIC wanted to perform\n additional testing for E. coli O157:H7 but, under FSIS Directive\n 10,010.1, ConAgra was exempt from testing unless inspectors\n received permission through supervisory channels. Furthermore,\n several of ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s positive tests were from beef trim, and\n procedures required FSIS action only if the adulteration were found in\n ground beef. According to district office officials, since TSC and\n FSIS headquarters advised against approving the IIC\xe2\x80\x99s request for\n testing, the district office denied permission. Both the IIC and district\n office officials understood that it was the TSC\xe2\x80\x99s policy that FSIS\n would not get involved if a plant was testing on its own, found\n problems, and corrected them;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In October of 2000, the IIC was denied permission to ignore\n ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s E. coli O157:H7 testing exemption in an effort to conduct\n some FSIS testing of ground product, even though he advised that\n the plant had increasing numbers of positive E. coli O157:H7 tests.\n An August 2001 NR linked eight instances of fecal contamination in\n the processing area. Finally, in September 2001, the IIC advised a\n staff member of the district office and the circuit supervisor that the\n plant had encountered several positive tests for E. coli O157:H7.\n The circuit supervisor said he would be in the plant the following\n week. Although the circuit supervisor did arrive at the plant, he gave\n no instructions to the inspectors and no actions were taken on the\n plant\xe2\x80\x99s operations;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Before the recall, the plant\xe2\x80\x99s own quality assurance staff identified\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 35\n\x0c serious problems with meat sanitation but did not reassess the\n HACCP plan to prevent future HACCP failures;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FSIS inspectors wrote 66 NRs from January 1, 2001, through\n November 14, 2002, for fecal contamination (see exhibit D) but took\n no enforcement action. (See Finding No. 4.) We noted that\n sanitation deficiencies were sometimes handled informally; no NRs\n were written; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ConAgra inspectors did not write an NR, as required, after FSIS\n tested a sample of ground beef on September 10, 2002, and found it\n positive for E. coli O157:H7. The IIC said he was aware of the\n requirement but could not explain why an NR was not prepared. No\n one was held accountable.\n\n FSIS has in place an array of reviews aimed at improving agency\n operations and inspector performance. Most significant among these are\n the Program Assessments and Internal Audits, which are performed in\n response to actual or perceived problems, and the Management Control\n Reviews, which are conducted to determine if agency controls are in\n compliance with GAO and Office of Management and Budget\n requirements. Although any of these reviews, properly performed, may\n have resulted in tighter standards at ConAgra, none were conducted there\n over the period before the recall. In April and May of 2001, FSIS\n conducted the first of a series of reviews known as Food Safety Systems\n Correlations, designed to identify the range of food safety practices within\n an FSIS district and share these practices with FSIS personnel in that\n district. Although the first district selected for a correlation review was the\n one in which ConAgra resided, ConAgra itself was not included in the\n review sample.\n\n Indepth verification reviews could have helped draw the attention of both\n the inspectors and FSIS management to the poor practices at ConAgra.\n Verification reviews allow supervisors and managers to concentrate\n oversight of operations at problem plants. However, because ConAgra\n was not considered a problem plant, an indepth verification review was\n never performed there.\n\n We believe the FSIS inspection staff at ConAgra could benefit from\n greater management guidance. For example, when the results from the\n correlation reviews were shared with the ConAgra inspectors, none of\n them, including the IIC, appeared to draw the appropriate correlations,\n even though the poor practices disclosed by the reviews (incomplete\n analysis of hazards, weak controls, poor records) mirrored the operation at\n ConAgra. We also observed during our audit that both plant and FSIS\n inspection personnel engaged in numerous unhygienic practices. We saw\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 36\n\x0c the cleaning crew, plant quality assurance personnel, and FSIS inspectors\n touching unsanitary surfaces and then touching food contact surfaces\n without washing or disinfecting their hands (see exhibit F). The IIC took\n the position that because the plant used disinfectant foam on food contact\n surfaces just before the start of operations, the practices we observed\n affected only nonfood contact surfaces.\n\n We concluded that FSIS supervision of the inspection team at ConAgra,\n both before and during the recall, was too limited and ineffective.\n Conditions at the plant clearly warranted additional oversight. We also\n concluded that FSIS managers should be ready to support enforcement\n actions under the conditions that prevailed at ConAgra. Earlier\n enforcement may have limited the scope of the recall or eliminated the\n need for it entirely.\n\n Increase supervision and oversight to the\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 10 plant until it demonstrates it is capable of\n eliminating unsanitary conditions and\n practices and producing product that is\n sanitary and wholesome.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS agrees that greater oversight over the inspection program at Est.\n 969 is beneficial and has done so. The Agency has taken several\n personnel actions to immediately address the problems at the plant. A\n new acting Circuit Supervisor (CS) has been assigned to the\n establishment. The new acting CS is actively involved in oversight\n activities.\n\n In addition, the District Office placed a Supervisory Veterinary Medical\n Officer (SVMO) in the position as acting Inspector In Charge (IIC). He is\n actively involved in all supervision and oversight functions. Supervisory\n oversight has increased dramatically at all levels. In-plant staffing has\n remained a constant priority to facilitate adequate inspectional oversight\n activities.\n\n The FSIS monitoring of the in-plant sampling of ground beef for E. coli\n O157:H7 has continued since the initial recall of product began. In\n addition, Est. 969 has continued its daily in-plant sampling of all beef trim.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 37\n\x0c Strengthen monitoring of inspector activities at\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 11 the plant to achieve an acceptable level of\n performance in applying HACCP\n requirements.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n The FSIS inspection activities have been strengthened and increased at\n Est. 969 since the initiation of the enforcement action. As a result of the\n November 2002 enforcement action, an in-plant FSIS Verification Plan\n was developed detailing FSIS in-plant activities to monitor the plant\xe2\x80\x99s\n actions in response to the enforcement action taken. A copy of the FSIS\n Verification Plan was provided to and discussed with plant management.\n The plan is designed to ensure that the establishment fully implements\n and executes the revisions of the SSOP and HACCP plan(s) and other\n corrective actions as indicated and can be modified to reflect any\n necessary changes. The FSIS Verification Plan identifies the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s actions, the relevant regulatory requirement the actions\n meet and the Inspection System Procedure (ISP) code under which the\n inspection task will be performed. It identifies and establishes timelines to\n which the plant committed. The plan also has to be initialed and dated by\n the in-plant inspection team member completing the task and identifying\n plant actions, responses, or non-compliances documented. The\n completed copies of the plan are mailed or faxed to the Boulder District\n Office for review bi-weekly.\n\n In addition, the in-plant inspection team, both day and night shifts,\n generate daily e-mail reports detailing the plant operations, NR\xe2\x80\x99s\n documented or other problems. The e-mail reports are sent to the\n opposite shift FSIS supervisor, the CS, and the District Office.\n\n In addition, on June 17, 2002, FSIS issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant\n Performance System Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory\n Guideline (Enclosure No. 6). These documents provide specific\n instructions and guidance on how to assess the performance of inspection\n personnel in the PR/HACCP system environment and for verifying that\n inspection personnel are carrying out their responsibilities. These include\n applying the appropriate inspection methods, using effective regulatory\n decision making and documenting findings appropriately, and when\n warranted, implementing enforcement actions properly.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 38\n\x0c FSIS will complete an internal assessment of IPPS to ensure that the\n reviews are accomplishing their objectives. The internal assessment at\n Est. 969 will be completed by October 2003.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 39\n\x0cCHAPTER 2 RECALL OF CONAGRA BEEF PRODUCTS NEEDED\n MORE PROACTIVE INVOLVEMENT BY FSIS\n\n\n The recall of ConAgra beef products was not effective or efficient. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n management of the recall process, as well as the manner in which it is\n conducted, needs to be reassessed. Traceback policy impeded the timely\n identification of the source of the adulterated product and the product\n (production period) that should be recalled. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 monitoring of the recall\n process through its effectiveness checks was not timely to maximize the\n product recovered. Also, problems and/or discrepancies identified in its\n checks were not subject to management review, analysis, and/or action.\n Although all recalls are voluntary on the part of industry, we concluded in\n the case of ConAgra that FSIS should strengthen its oversight role to\n provide increased assurance that recall measures are rapid and timely\n notice of the recall and recovery of the product is made. As of\n January 2003, FSIS recovered no more than 17 percent of the 18 million\n pounds of beef recalled.\n\n Inefficient trace back policies. Identification of the specific amount of\n product to be recalled was complicated by FSIS delays in identifying the\n source of the contamination and by plant records that did not help track\n the disbursements of the product to its purchasers. FSIS was slow to\n react to evidence of E. coli O157:H7 contamination at Galligan and\n Montana Quality Foods because FSIS had no clear policy on when to\n take a traceback sample to identify the source of the contamination.\n FSIS technicians refused to approve traceback sampling, but the district\n office persisted until National Office managers approved it. Because of\n this unclear FSIS policy, the ConAgra recall was delayed 7 days.\n During the 7-day period, under its normal operation, ConAgra could\n have produced up to 3.75 million pounds of recalled beef.\n\n No record requirements to quickly identify purchasers of beef. Galligan\n managers could not readily identify from their records which of their\n purchasers received product made from ConAgra beef and how much\n of their product made from other sources may have been\n cross-contaminated by the ConAgra beef. FSIS does not require firms\n to keep records that can readily trace raw or finished product to all\n suppliers and/or purchasers.\n\n Little preparation for a recall. Industry managers were not always\n prepared for a recall. Although ConAgra had procedures in place for a\n potential recall, there were no plans at Galligan and Montana Quality\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 40\n\x0c Foods. FSIS directives ask establishment operators to take measures\n to ensure a rapid and effective recall but, because recalls are voluntary,\n FSIS does not have the authority to mandate recall provisions in the\n HACCP plans.\n\n Ineffective FSIS oversight. FSIS conducted effectiveness checks of\n ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s recall from the time of the initial recall to up to 4 months later\n (about 50 percent of the effectiveness checks occurred more than\n 30 days after the recall). To date, there has been limited management\n review, analysis, and/or action on the findings disclosed. In one district,\n FSIS compliance officers documented in 67 of the 490 effectiveness\n checks we reviewed that distributors and others in the distribution chain\n had not been properly notified of the recall. District compliance officers\n did not always resolve the problems encountered during the reviews\n and did not initiate any enforcement actions. Moreover, they did not\n always verify information provided by the distributors.\n\n During the recall, FSIS dispatched an inspection team to ConAgra to\n determine if its HACCP systems and other controls were adequate to\n prevent adulterated product from entering commerce and if future\n production from ConAgra posed a health risk to consumers. In response\n to FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 demands for improvement, ConAgra attempted to control the\n E. coli O157:H7 contamination of its ground beef by offering to add lactic\n acid to the ground beef to destroy the contaminant. This process had not\n been tried, but FSIS approved it without performing a well documented\n and systematic review of the scientific evidence submitted by ConAgra\n that showed the process would work.\n\n To date, only about 3 million pounds of the 18 million pounds of recalled\n product have been returned and the remaining pounds were not returned\n or accounted for.\n\n Although ConAgra had procedures in place\n FINDING NO. 6 (external to its HACCP plan) to address a\n potential recall, there were no plans at\n HACCP PLANS DID NOT Galligan and Montana Foods. ConAgra\nRECOGNIZE A NEED FOR RECALL followed its plan during the recent recall;\n neither of the other establishments had\n considered what they would do in the event of\n a recall. FSIS policy recommends but does not require that\n establishments have a recall plan, and a recall plan is not considered part\n of an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s overall HACCP plan. The absence of recall plans\n can impact the timely and efficient identification and recovery of potentially\n contaminated product. During this recall, one of the establishments\n lacking a recall plan had difficulty in identifying all product subject to the\n recall.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 41\n\x0c FSIS Directive 8080.1,29 states that establishment operators should take\n measures that will ensure rapid and effective recall of products. To\n achieve this goal, the operator should prepare and maintain a detailed,\n written recall plan. This plan should describe, step-by-step, the\n procedures (which include scope of recall, effectiveness checks, and\n returned product control) the firm will follow in case it becomes necessary\n to recall a product. Because recalls are considered a voluntary action on\n the part of industry, FSIS has no regulatory requirement that an\n establishment have a recall plan or that the recall plan be included in its\n HACCP plan.\n\n Galligan did not have a written recall procedure and did not see a need for\n one because sampled product never leaves the facility. The product is\n always held until the results of FSIS microbiological tests are completed.\n When Galligan did experience a recall from its supplier, the only way the\n company could determine what customers had received the recalled\n product was to review its sales records. However, incomplete sales\n records, ground beef production records, and SSOP records complicated\n the identification of the product requiring recall as well as the customers\n who purchased the recalled product.\n\n According to a Montana Quality Foods official, the company did not have a\n recall plan because it is a small plant. The FSIS circuit supervisor advised\n us that no plant in the circuit had a recall plan.\n\n The USDA Office of the General Counsel informed us that since recalls\n are done voluntarily by industry, some type of Congressional action would\n be required before FSIS can mandate that recall provisions be\n incorporated in HACCP plans. However, FSIS officials informed us this\n was unnecessary because FSIS would be involved in any recall and they\n would follow their own procedures, not a company\xe2\x80\x99s plan. We found,\n however, that FSIS procedures were not always effective (see Finding\n No. 8).\n\n Based on the inefficiencies experienced during this current recall, we\n concluded that recall operations can be improved if a recall plan is\n required as part of each plant\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan.\n\n Seek legislation and issue regulations\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 12 requiring that all establishments include in\n their HACCP plan the steps that would be\n necessary to conduct an effective recall of\n product and provide for its proper disposition.\n\n29\n FSIS Directive 8080.1, Revision 3, (Recall of Meat and Poultry Products), dated January 19, 2000.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 42\n\x0c FSIS Response\n\n FSIS has strongly encouraged establishments to incorporate a recall plan\n in their HACCP plans through direction provided in FSIS Directive 8080.1\n (Enclosure No. 7), \xe2\x80\x9cRecall of Meat and Poultry Products.\xe2\x80\x9d As part of the\n Directive, FSIS provided \xe2\x80\x9cProduct Recall Guidelines for Firms.\xe2\x80\x9d The\n guideline outlines the actions that FSIS expects a firm to take in the event\n that the establishment decides to recall product.\n\n FSIS does not have authority to make it mandatory for establishments to\n include plans for a recall in their HACCP plans. On December 12, 2002,\n FSIS held a public meeting to discuss improving the overall recall process.\n As a result of that meeting, FSIS is considering ways to further encourage\n plants to incorporate effective recall plans into their HACCP plans. FSIS\n expects to update this guidance on planning for recalls by March 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot reach management decision based on this response. Since\n recalls are currently voluntary by industry and FSIS states it cannot\n mandate that plants incorporate recall plans in their HACCP plans, FSIS\n must develop compensating controls to ensure that recalls are effectively\n performed so that recovery of contaminated product is maximized. To\n reach management decision, in the absence of authority to require plants\n to develop and implement recall plans, FSIS needs to provide a\n description of the compensating controls it will put in place, and\n timeframes for implementation, to ensure recalls are timely and efficient to\n maximize the recovery of contaminated product. This is especially critical\n for those plants that have not established recall plans.\n\n When E. coli O157:H7 was detected at\n FINDING NO. 7 Galligan, FSIS did not take timely traceback\n samples to identify the source of the\n UNCLEAR POLICY AND contamination, even though Galligan officials\nPROCEDURES FOR TRACEBACK complained that their suppliers\xe2\x80\x99 beef was the\n SAMPLES DELAYED RECALL source, not the Galligan operation itself. FSIS\n also took no traceback samples from Montana\n Quality Foods, which made the same\n complaint. FSIS was slow to react, in part, because it did not have a clear\n written policy on when to take a traceback sample to identify the source of\n E. coli O157:H7 in product at meat processors (grinders). Existing policy\n stated that the grinders should be held accountable for ensuring the\n product they purchased from their suppliers was wholesome. Moreover,\n some FSIS officials interpreted the guidance and regulations to restrict or\n eliminate any sampling for traceback purposes. As a result of uncertainty\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 43\n\x0c over procedure, the traceback sample that resulted in the ConAgra recall\n was delayed 7 days, in part, because FSIS field personnel were required\n to obtain concurrence from the FSIS TSC before taking the sample.\n During the 7-day period, under its normal operation, ConAgra could have\n produced up to 3.75 million pounds of recalled beef. We concluded that\n this and other product may have been consumed when clearer traceback\n procedures could have either kept it out of commerce or ensured that it\n was identified and returned.\n\n In 1994,30 FSIS defined E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef as an\n adulterant. Accordingly, ground beef shipped by beef processors\n (grinders) that was contaminated was to be considered adulterated and\n the grinder held responsible for a violation of the Federal Meat Inspection\n Act.31 In January 1999, FSIS extended the definition to include\n contaminated beef trim and coarse-ground beef. Therefore, raw materials\n received by beef grinders that contained the E. coli pathogen were also to\n be considered adulterated and the supplier was in violation of the Federal\n Meat Inspection Act. 32\n\n The January 1999 definition of adulteration appeared to make traceback\n essential since a violation of law would have occurred. However, in\n March 1999,33 FSIS requested comments on the new definition of what\n constituted adulteration and stated they would not take action to enforce\n the change pending evaluation of the comments. Inspectors inferred from\n this action that FSIS had suspended the new definition of trim and\n coarse-ground beef as adulterated if contaminated by E. coli O157:H7.34\n Remaining in place was FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 verbal policy to hold meat grinders\n responsible for the products processed at their establishments and for\n ensuring meat products they purchased from suppliers were wholesome.\n\n\n\n\n30\n 9 CFR III (FSIS, USDA).\n31\n 21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.\n32\n Federal Register, dated January 19, 1999\n33\n Federal Register, dated February 11, 2000.\n34\n It should be noted that the original Federal Register Notice stated that the agency was soliciting input\nfrom the public about regulatory requirements that may be appropriate to prevent distribution of products\nadulterated with E. coli O157:H7. The Notice specified that any changes made to the regulations would\nhave to be consistent with the agency\xe2\x80\x99s view that E. coli-contaminated intact cuts (e.g., trim) that are to be\nfurther processed into non-intact products (e.g., ground beef) will be considered adulterated unless\nconditions of handling can ensure they will not be distributed until they have been processed into ready-\nto-eat products. However, constituent guidance provided to the industry after a March 8, 1999, public\nmeeting to accept comments on the policy, stated that FSIS would not take action to enforce their\ndetermination that trim products were adulterated, pending evaluation of the public comments.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 44\n\x0c Unwritten35 FSIS policy that had not been clearly communicated to field\n personnel provided that traceback samples could be conducted when\n E. coli O157:H7 was identified in product produced by meat grinders.\n However, for a traceback to be attempted, FSIS required two conditions to\n be met:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The contaminated ground beef had to have been produced from a\n \xe2\x80\x9cclean-grind\xe2\x80\x9d (i.e., the establishment had to demonstrate a\n documented cleanup of their facilities and equipment immediately\n before the production of the contaminated lot); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The contaminated ground beef had to have come from a single source\n supplier (i.e., the establishment had to prove to the satisfaction of\n FSIS inspectors that the contaminated ground beef did not contain\n product from more than one supplier).\n\n Thus, traceback sampling would only be attempted if the plant could\n already establish the likely outside source of the contamination. The\n decision itself to take traceback samples further required FSIS inspectors\n to gain the concurrence of the TSC.\n\n Galligan Wholesale Meat Company\n\n A routine monitoring sample of ground beef (MT03) taken at Galligan first\n identified the presence of the E. coli pathogen on May 14, 2002. An NR\n was issued and the company reassessed its HACCP plan, as required. A\n traceback sample was not taken because the sampled product (ground on\n May 9) contained beef from more than one supplier. As part of the\n corrective action taken on the NR, the company stated they would\n minimize suppliers to one or two per lot.\n\n FSIS began its verification series of 15 consecutive samples (MT04) at\n Galligan on May 31. It collected samples on May 31, June 4, 5, 7, 11, 12,\n and 14. On June 17, the FSIS Western Laboratory reported that the\n sample taken on June 12 tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. The IIC at\n the plant immediately retained the lot containing the product that tested\n positive. Company officials reported that all of the beef used in the\n contaminated lot had come from ConAgra in Greeley. At this point, no\n recall was considered necessary by FSIS because the lot that tested\n positive had been held at Galligan.\n\n\n35\n FSIS Directive 10,010.1, dated February 1, 1998, provides the instructions for the microbiological\ntesting program for E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. The directive provides for collecting samples\nunder three project codes, MT03 (monitoring program at grinding facilities), MT04 (15 consecutive\nverification samples taken after a positive MT03 test), and MT05 (samples taken at retail level\nestablishments). The directive does not address traceback sampling.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 45\n\x0c On June 18, the district manager instructed the IIC to stop the company\n from producing product and to retain any raw materials remaining in the\n plant that had been used in the lot that tested positive. At the same time,\n the district manager contacted the TSC to obtain their agreement to take a\n traceback sample from raw materials available at Galligan. An e-mail\n response, dated June 18, stated:\n\n The TSC cannot recommend or support any decision to collect a\n sample as part of MT04 follow-up sampling prior to the product\n being ground at the establishment where the initial positive\n occurred under the MT03 project. It is the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n [Galligan]36 responsibility under the regulations to address the\n source of the food safety hazard\xe2\x80\xa6. It does not appear that this\n company [Galligan] is trying to do this, but instead to point fingers\n at other companies [ConAgra] not meeting their responsibilities\xe2\x80\xa6.\n In regards to the other plant [ConAgra], where the adulterant is\n being alleged to be coming from, you may want to have your\n in-plant inspection team verifying the adequacy of the\n HACCP-Based Inspection System, looking at their program and\n current documentation.\n\n After the TSC refused to support the district office request to take the\n sample on, or about, June 19 or 20, the district contacted FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 Office of\n Public Health and Safety (OPHS) in Washington for permission to take the\n sample. Permission was given by OPHS on June 24, and a compliance\n officer immediately obtained the traceback sample at Galligan. The\n product sampled was ConAgra coarse-ground beef produced on\n May 31, 2002, and was in chubs37 labeled sell or use by June 18, 2002. In\n all, 7 days were lost in obtaining permission to take the traceback sample\n (June 17-24). The traceback sample was confirmed positive for the E. coli\n pathogen on June 29; the recall process was initiated that resulted in the\n June 30 recall at ConAgra.\n\n Montana Quality Foods\n\n Company officials allege that positive E. coli O157:H7 samples in their\n products, detected in January and February 2002, were made from beef\n supplied by the ConAgra plant at Greeley. Company records showed that\n at the time of the first positive test result in January 2002 Montana Quality\n Foods had products on hand from both ConAgra and another supplier.\n When an FSIS compliance officer arrived at the plant after the first positive\n result (MT03 test), a Montana Quality Foods official said he offered both\n products to the compliance officer for testing. The Montana Quality Foods\n\n36\n All entries in brackets added for clarification and were not included in the original message.\n37\n A chub is processed meat packaged in a tube.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 46\n\x0c official said the compliance officer declined and said the procedures did\n not allow FSIS to sample incoming product that bore the mark of\n inspection. District office officials said FSIS did not collect a traceback\n sample of raw materials at Montana Quality Foods because the\n contaminated product could not be linked to a single source.\n\n Montana Quality Foods returned products from both ConAgra and the\n other supplier. It subsequently received additional ConAgra product,\n which a Montana Quality Foods official later said was the source of the\n positive verification (MT04) test results at the plant. The contaminated\n ConAgra beef bore the same batch number and date of production as the\n ConAgra product previously returned; however, the Montana Quality\n Foods official said he was unaware of this at the time. The official said\n that when Montana Quality Foods learned of the three positive test results\n on verification samples, no source product was left in the plant to fulfill an\n FSIS request for the source product. FSIS tried but could not find any\n remaining ConAgra product from the same batch and production date to\n test.\n\n FSIS officials informed us that a project code and sample collection and\n processing procedures for traceback samples have been developed,\n although the written procedures have not yet been issued. In addition,\n FSIS issued guidance in July 2002 that provided for in-plant inspection\n personnel to identify the firms supplying the raw materials when\n presumptive positive test results are reported in raw ground beef. These\n requirements were contained in a notice in November 2002.39 Upon\n notification that there is a confirmed positive test result, the district office is\n now required to notify the affected suppliers that product from their\n establishment was used in raw ground beef that tested positive for the\n E. coli O157:H7 pathogen. In addition, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 RMD has been instructed to\n follow a similar procedure to notify suppliers when their raw materials are\n included in adulterated product subject to recall.\n\n Expedite issuance of the regulations and/or\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 13 written directives, as necessary, to provide\n clear directions on when traceback samples\n are to be collected and how the samples are\n to be processed. Incorporate the cited notice requiring notification of\n suppliers into the FSIS Directive System.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS will provide clear directions on when traceback samples are to be\n\n39\n FSIS Notice 47-02, dated November 20, 2002.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 47\n\x0c collected and how the samples are to be processed in the updated FSIS\n Directive 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing Program For Escherichia coli\n O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d In the interim, FSIS issued Notice 11-03,\n \xe2\x80\x9cUpdate to FSIS Directive 10,010.1, Microbiological Testing Program For\n Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef,\xe2\x80\x9d dated April 18, 2003.\n This notice updates instructions to inspection personnel on planned\n changes to the Directive including providing more comprehensive\n procedures, requirements for notification of suppliers, and increased\n verification needs. The revised Directive will be issued by October 2003\n and incorporate the instructions of the notice.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot accept the management decision. The notice cited by FSIS\n does not contain requirements or procedures for notifying suppliers when\n positive MT03 sample test results are found. To reach management\n decision, FSIS needs to incorporate such procedures into the cited\n directive when issued.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 management control and oversight of\n FINDING NO. 8 the recall process does not provide\n reasonable assurance that recovery of the\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 OVERSIGHT REVIEWS OF recalled product is maximized and\n THE CONAGRA RECALL WERE enforcement actions, when necessary, are\n NOT USED TO CONTROL THE taken. Effectiveness checks by compliance\n RECALL PROCESS officers were not reviewed by management,\n analyzed, and/or problems always resolved.\n We found that effectiveness checks were\n made up to 4 months after the initial recall, which limits the potential\n recovery of product, such as ground beef. Also, our review of the\n effectiveness checks disclosed incomplete and inconsistent reviews and\n lack of documented enforcement actions when problems were disclosed.\n In one district, although FSIS confirmed that ConAgra notified all primary\n distributors of the recall, in 67 cases, FSIS found that those distributors\n had not notified others in the commercial chain. There was no evidence\n that FSIS took enforcement action in these cases. As a result, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n oversight of the recall process was not always effective in ensuring that\n the objectives of its management control process are met. According to\n FSIS Directive 8080.1 (Rev. 3), the primary purpose of effectiveness\n checks is to verify (1) that adequate notice about the recall has been\n provided to all consignees by the firm conducting the recall and (2) that\n consignees have located and controlled the recalled product and have\n followed the recalling firm\xe2\x80\x99s instructions for removing it.\n\n FSIS officials stated that resource constraints have limited how quickly it\n can complete its effectiveness checks. However, we believe that FSIS\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 48\n\x0c needs to reassess how it conducts and manages this process to ensure\n that recall notice is timely provided and recalled product is removed from\n commerce.\n\n a. Effectiveness Checks Had Not Been Monitored\n\n We reviewed FSIS management control over the effectiveness check\n process in one district. We found limited evidence of supervisory\n review over the checks to be performed or the adequacy of those\n checks. Supervisory reviews were not completed until March 2003,\n after OIG requested documentation of the effectiveness checks. We\n found evidence of supervisory review for only 37 of 490 effectiveness\n checks we reviewed.\n\n Enforcement Protocol VI, Recalls, specifies that compliance officers in\n all districts involved in the recall should conduct recall effectiveness\n checks to verify that the recall action is conducted in an efficient\n manner. There are no specific criteria in the instructions for\n determining the optimum number of checks to be performed.\n\n FSIS National Office officials informed all affected districts that\n effectiveness checks would be conducted on 100 percent of the\n primary distributors, 20 to 25 percent of the secondary distributors, 5 to\n 10 percent of the tertiary distributors, and 5 percent of the distributors\n beyond tertiary. In one district reviewed, about 20 compliance officers\n were responsible for effectiveness checks. The district\xe2\x80\x99s Recall\n Effectiveness Progress Reports reported that all primary distributor\n effectiveness checks had been completed.40 Furthermore, the district\n reported that no problems had been encountered during the\n effectiveness check process. The district provided OIG\n 490 effectiveness checks for analysis (37 primary, 436 secondary,\n 13 tertiary, 4 beyond). Our review disclosed the following concerns:\n\n FSIS did not ensure it performed a sufficient number of checks.\n We found that individual FSIS compliance officers were responsible\n for contacting the required number of distributors outlined in the\n FSIS plan and for determining the number of secondary, tertiary\n and beyond reviews to be done. However, the individual\n compliance officers did not formally document how they determined\n the number of checks to be performed, and there was no\n reconciliation of the number of reviews conducted to those planned.\n We could not determine if all planned reviews were performed\n because the data had not been accumulated. FSIS officials stated\n\n40\n As of March 25, 2003, FSIS had made (nationwide) about 250 primary checks, 5,000 secondary\nchecks, and 250 checks at the tertiary level and beyond.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 49\n\x0c it would be too labor intensive to collect this information after the\n fact. There is no requirement for FSIS at any level to document\n that FSIS accomplished its plan for completing its effectiveness\n checks.\n\n Effectiveness checks were inconsistent and incomplete. We found\n at least 266 discrepancies in the data collected and documented on\n the effectiveness check forms completed by district compliance\n officers. Examples follow:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 10 cases where disposition of product on hand at the time of\n the effectiveness check was not documented;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 6 cases where the number of subaccounts was not\n documented;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 cases where the firm had a sub-recall but there was no\n notation as to whether sub-recall instructions were followed;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 2 cases where the form showed the firm did not comply with\n recall instructions but there was no documentation of the\n problem;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 1 case where the form showed no sub-recall but\n 5 sub-accounts were noted;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 3 cases where the form indicated a sub-recall was instituted\n but the box indicating the sub-recall instructions were followed\n was marked \xe2\x80\x9cNA\xe2\x80\x9d;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 97 cases where the weight of recalled product purchased was\n not shown; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 145 cases where key dates were omitted.\n\n Checks were not always timely. Some effectiveness checks were\n not timely performed. Effectiveness checks were conducted\n between July 8, 2002 and November 2002. For the effectiveness\n checks we reviewed, we found about 31 percent were done in July,\n 42 percent in August, 20 percent in September, and 7 percent in\n October. Two checks were performed in November (0.4 percent).\n\n FSIS procedures do not specify the timeframes required for\n conducting effectiveness checks. To provide reasonable\n assurance that recalled product is timely identified and removed\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 50\n\x0c from commerce, FSIS needs to establish timeframes for completing\n and acting on its reviews.\n\n b. Managers Did Not Follow-Up on Problems Disclosed by Effectiveness\n Checks\n\n Enforcement Protocol VI, Recalls, states that if effectiveness checks\n disclose that consignees have not been notified of the product recall or\n have not acted as requested by the recalling firm, FSIS personnel are\n to detain any product posing a health risk and notify the recalling firm.\n Communication breakdowns that cause a failure to recall product\n should result in FSIS compliance personnel notifying the recalling firm\n so corrective actions can be taken. District offices are to notify the\n compliance officer in headquarters and they are to follow-up with the\n firm and document the corrective actions taken. Logs are to be\n maintained of these reported problems and how the problems were\n resolved. If the firm does not take prompt action to contact the\n consignees with recall instructions or the consignee fails to act on the\n product as requested by the firm, compliance personnel may initiate\n other enforcement actions.\n\n In 19 cases, we found that the district office did not follow up to ensure\n that compliance officers resolved situations where they documented\n that the firm had not been notified of the recall. District office\n personnel stated that they were convinced at the time that all product\n was out of commerce and therefore, it was not necessary to resolve all\n these issues.\n\n For example, effectiveness checks for 4 of 37 primary distributors,\n 1 secondary distributor, and 4 tertiary distributors showed that some\n secondary and tertiary distributors were either not notified or were\n notified in an untimely manner.\n\n Figure 3: Secondary Distributors Not Notified of Recall\n Number of Number of Secondary\n Primary Secondary Distributor Distributors Not Notified of\n Distributor Effectiveness Checks the Recall\n 1\n A 24 0\n B 10 0\n C 65 42\n D 15 14\n 1\n Six effectiveness checks showed that the stores were notified from 8\n to 10 days following the recall.\n 2\n In addition, three other secondary distributors did not know whether\n they had been notified of the recall.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 51\n\x0c Figure 4: Tertiary Distributors Not Notified of Recall\n Number of Tertiary Number of Tertiary\n Secondary Distributor Distributors Not Notified of\n Distributor Effectiveness Checks the Recall\n E3 4 4\n 3\n Distributor E is a secondary distributor for primary Distributor D.\n\n District compliance officers documented the reasons some notifications\n were not made, but did not always verify the information provided, and\n they did not take enforcement actions where needed. We question\n whether information provided to District managers by these\n effectiveness checks was sufficient to allow the managers to conclude\n that the recall was effective.\n\n Distributor A. The primary effectiveness check for distributor A showed\n that distributor personnel would not be able to trace product to any\n particular retail store because the product was given a new lot code\n when it was received at the distribution center. Therefore, all similarly\n packaged product that was purchased from more than one supplier\n would have the same lot number. The distributor\xe2\x80\x99s representative\n stated that the only way to trace product to the individual stores would\n be through the grinding logs. It is FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy not to take exception to\n this practice, even though the recall process would be delayed.\n\n Distributor D. A representative of distributor D stated to the\n compliance officer that his firm had received verbal and written recall\n notification of the original recall but not of the expanded recall. The\n FSIS compliance officer documented that the distributor purchased\n 80,084 pounds of ground beef that was included in the expanded\n recall. Distributor D\xe2\x80\x99s representative told the compliance officer that\n the company did not institute a \xe2\x80\x9csub-recall\xe2\x80\x9d during the original recall\n because it sold the product lines to high-volume end-users who would\n have likely used the ground beef in a short timeframe. The\n representative stated, \xe2\x80\x9cI am sure the product had been used up but our\n sales staff has begun notifying people by phone.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n From our review of the effectiveness checks for 15 secondary\n distributors, we could not verify that primary distributor D had notified\n 14 of its customers as stated. The FSIS compliance officer did not\n resolve this issue, and FSIS National Office officials informed us that\n no enforcement actions were taken against any of the firms that failed\n to make the proper notifications. However, we noted that although\n current procedures require compliance officers to take enforcement\n actions if a customer is not notified, they do not make clear what those\n actions should be if the distributor is down line. FSIS has not\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 52\n\x0c established criteria for assessing penalties when such recall\n notifications are not done.\n\n FSIS National Office officials informed us that the district office notified\n them once of a specific distributor (on the island of Guam) that was not\n notified of the recall.41 According to FSIS officials, other districts have\n referred cases to FSIS headquarters, which monitors the districts\xe2\x80\x99\n pursuit of the cases to resolution. For example, one district reported\n that one tertiary firm was not informed of the recall, and the National\n Office instructed the district to trace the chain of companies from this\n firm. Ultimately, the district located one remaining case of product that\n should have been recalled. Another district reported that a distributor\n refused to notify customers of a sub-recall because it assumed all the\n meat had been eaten. FSIS instructed this district to verify this\n assumption. The district contacted 13 of the customers, who verified\n that the product had been consumed onsite, with only one consumer\n complaint of an \xe2\x80\x9coff odor\xe2\x80\x9d to the beef.\n\n c. Effectiveness Checks Were Not Analyzed by Management\n\n The recall is considered for closure after (1) the recalling firm has\n submitted a final closeout letter and (2) FSIS determines that the\n recalling firm has made all reasonable efforts to recall the product and\n that the product has either been disposed of, been retained by FSIS, or\n been taken under documented control by the company. A\n recommendation for closure would be prepared and submitted to the\n RMD for its review and approval, and the recall case would be\n removed from active status on the FSIS web site. However, no\n desired timeframe for completing these actions is contained in FSIS\n procedures, and no criteria are provided for evaluating the\n effectiveness of the recall, such as the amount of product accounted\n for, the number of consignees contacted, etc.\n\n As of March 1, 2003, ConAgra had not issued a recall closeout letter to\n FSIS showing the disposition of all recalled product. In addition, the\n company had about 900,000 pounds of recalled ground beef in storage\n whose disposition FSIS has not approved. FSIS has no evidence that\n validated the proper disposition of this product.\n\n In its draft closeout memorandum to the FSIS National Office, the\n district reviewed showed that a total of 497 effectiveness checks were\n done. The draft conclusion reached by the district office on the recall\n was, \xe2\x80\x9cIt would appear that the recall was conducted in an effective\n\n41\n We discovered that a district compliance officer provided the notification without the knowledge of\ndistrict office management.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 53\n\x0c manner. No problems were noted or encountered. This letter will\n close the recall for the district.\xe2\x80\x9d The district office determined that the\n ConAgra recall was effective because district personnel were\n convinced that all product had been taken out of commerce. Even\n though all the notifications were not made, compliance officers found\n no cases of additional illness that they could directly relate to the\n absence of a specific notification. Therefore, they believe that it could\n be concluded that the absence of notifications had no adverse public\n health effects.\n\n We question the determination made by the district office. We found\n that neither the district nor National Office analyzed the effectiveness\n checks to determine whether ConAgra and its distributors made all\n reasonable efforts to recall and dispose of the product. The district\n office based its conclusion that the recall was effective on the\n abatement of reported cases of food poisoning.\n\n Documentation showed that in 67 effectiveness checks reviewed,\n distributors and others in the distribution chain were not notified of the\n ConAgra recall. When FSIS notified the firms during the effectiveness\n checks, the firms were able to take control of about 1,600 pounds of\n recalled product that may have otherwise been consumed. One firm\xe2\x80\x99s\n manager told the FSIS compliance officer that he found out about the\n recall on the Internet. He searched his freezer and identified a case of\n recalled product, but he could not get the distributor to pick it up until\n he insisted it had to be removed.\n\n FSIS National Office officials stated that resource constraints limit what\n they can do in a set time period. However, FSIS needs to re-examine\n their process for completing effectiveness checks; they serve a limited\n purpose if they are not timely and/or enforcement action taken when\n needed. FSIS needs to strengthen its procedures for completing,\n reporting, and analyzing the results of its management control reviews\n over the effectiveness of the recall. Although FSIS procedures suggest\n that the recalling firm conduct effectiveness checks of its primary\n distributors\xe2\x80\x99 notification to others in the commercial chain, ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s\n recall plan did not provide for this control. FSIS assumed sole\n responsibility to evaluate whether the primary distributors properly notified\n others in the distribution chain and disposed of the recalled product. FSIS\n needs to place the responsibility for conducting effectiveness checks on\n the firm conducting the recall and take enforcement action whenever\n necessary when product has not been timely identified and disposed of.\n FSIS can then direct its resources to providing management oversight\n over the adequacy of the recalling firm\xe2\x80\x99s actions.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 54\n\x0c Implement a management control process to\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 14 ensure that district managers comply with\n recall procedures and that compliance officers\xe2\x80\x99\n determinations are reviewed, analyzed, and\n acted on.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n In March 2003, the District Offices were provided draft guidelines to be\n immediately implemented to ensure that recall activities are effectively\n carried out. These guidelines clarify CO responsibilities associated with\n recalls and require that each District Office designate an individual to\n manage recall activities during working hours, as well as after hours,\n weekends, and holidays. The guidelines also address the responsibilities\n of the Deputy District Manager and COs pertaining to recalls. The\n responsibilities of Deputy District Managers and COs were also addressed\n at the FSIS Compliance Training session that was held in Dallas, Texas,\n during the week of April 28-May 2, 2003 (Enclosure No. 2).\n\n FSIS also plans to convene an internal workgroup to provide\n recommendations as to how to improve the recall effectiveness checks\n process. The workgroup will also provide recommendations so FSIS has\n a mechanism in place to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, District\n Managers comply with recall procedures and assure that COs\xe2\x80\x99\n determinations are reviewed, analyzed and acted on. The workgroup will\n also consider the overall policies and procedures for managing the recall\n process and the recall effectiveness checks and will make\n recommendations for improvement.\n\n As part of the recall process improvement effort, FSIS will examine and\n include in directives, as appropriate, provisions to establish criteria to\n assess the overall effectiveness of a recall, to reconcile planned\n effectiveness checks to those checks actually performed, to identify\n corrective actions to be taken when deficiencies are noted, etc. This\n information will be assembled and formalized in a directive. The\n management controls, responsibilities, and oversight roles for this process\n will be clearly delineated.\n\n The workgroup will provide a report outlining recommendations by\n October 2003. The draft guidelines issued to District Offices in\n March 2003 will be updated and finalized by March 2004. The final FSIS\n recommendations will be implemented by July 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n The planned actions are not sufficiently described to reach management\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 55\n\x0c decision. Our review of the interim guidelines of March 3, 2003, and\n information contained in the response, do not detail what provisions will be\n put in place for reconciling planned effectiveness checks to those checks\n that were actually performed. Also, the guidelines and reply do not specify\n what actions will be initiated when deficiencies are found with vendor\n notifications. Moreover, they do not establish or provide the criteria for\n assessing recall effectiveness. To reach management decision for this\n recommendation, FSIS needs to provide details of the management\n controls to be put in place to improve the recall activities and estimated\n timeframes for implementation.\n\n Reassess the policies and procedures for\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 15 managing the recall process. Require the\n recalling firm to conduct effectiveness checks\n on those below the primary distribution level.\n Perform sufficient oversight over the recall to ensure that notifications\n have been timely made and appropriate actions taken to dispose of the\n recalled product.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS does not have the statutory authority to require that establishments\n conduct effectiveness checks. FSIS believes the recommendation should\n be restated to ask that FSIS work with industry to improve the recalling\n firms\xe2\x80\x99 effectiveness checks.\n\n FSIS has convened a workgroup to provide recommendations as to how\n to improve the recall effectiveness checks process. The workgroup will\n also provide recommendations designed to ensure that FSIS has a\n mechanism in place to ensure that on an ongoing basis, District Managers\n comply with recall procedures and assure that COs\xe2\x80\x99 determinations are\n reviewed, analyzed, and acted on.\n\n In addition to providing recommendations to ensure that District Offices\n are properly carrying out their recall responsibilities, the workgroup will\n provide recommendations regarding what action should be taken in the\n event that the recalling firm has failed to conduct effectiveness checks\n below the primary level, and/or has not provided timely notifications to its\n consignees regarding the recalled product, or has not taken appropriate\n action to dispose of recalled product. FSIS intends to include as\n workgroup participants, persons who are familiar with the recall process\n and who have knowledge of problems that are encountered in the course\n of conducting recall effectiveness checks.\n\n As part of the recall process improvement effort, FSIS will examine and\n include in a directive, as appropriate, provisions to establish criteria to\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 56\n\x0c assess the overall effectiveness of a recall, to reconcile planned\n effectiveness checks to those checks actually performed, to identify\n corrective actions to be taken when deficiencies are noted, etc. This\n information will be assembled and formalized in a directive. The\n management controls, responsibilities, and oversight roles for this process\n will be clearly delineated in a directive.\n\n The workgroup will provide a report outlining recommendations by\n October 2003. The draft guidelines entitled, \xe2\x80\x9cOffice of Field Operations\n District Office Recall Responsibilities\xe2\x80\x9d which was issued to District Offices\n in March 2003 will be finalized by March 2004. The final FSIS\n recommendations will be implemented by July 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot reach management decision until FSIS provides details as to\n the changes that will be implemented to improve recall policies and\n procedures. Since product recalls are voluntary actions by the recalling\n firm, verification that proper notice has been provided to those in the\n distribution chain should be the responsibility of the recalling firm. FSIS,\n as part of its oversight responsibility, should monitor the process and\n provide additional oversight, where warranted.\n\n Establish a system of specific enforcement\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 16 actions to be taken against those processors\n or distributors where effectiveness checks\n disclose proper notifications of the\n consignees/customers have not been made.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n Under 9 CFR 500.3 FSIS has authority to take enforcement action against\n any establishment that has been found to have produced and shipped\n adulterated product. When effectiveness checks disclose that proper\n notification of the consignee/customers has not been given, FSIS has the\n authority to detain and, if necessary, seize products that have been\n determined to be adulterated. FSIS has prior precedent in applying its\n enforcement authority.\n\n FSIS is working closely with industry and is providing guidance on the\n proper and appropriate actions that should be taken during recalls. On\n December 12, 2002, FSIS held a public meeting to discuss improving the\n recall process. The Agency is considering ideas presented at the public\n meeting for increasing industry\xe2\x80\x99s involvement in managing recalls.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 57\n\x0c Also, during the week of April 28-May 2, 2003, an Office of Field\n Operations (OFO) Compliance training session was held in Dallas, Texas\n (Enclosure No. 2). As part of the training, OFO COs were provided\n training on their expected roles and responsibilities regarding recall\n activities. OFO COs will play a greater role in recalls. These COs will\n collect information to demonstrate that processors or distributors have\n either met or failed to disclose proper notifications to consignees or\n customers regarding recalled product. This information will be used as a\n basis for further strengthening and improving the recall process.\n\n As part of the recall process improvement effort, FSIS will examine and\n include as appropriate, provisions to establish criteria to assess the overall\n effectiveness of a recall, to reconcile planned effectiveness checks to\n those checks actually performed, to identify corrective actions to be taken\n when deficiencies are noted, etc. This information will be assembled and\n formalized in a directive. The management controls, responsibilities, and\n oversight roles for this process will be clearly delineated within the\n directive.\n\n The workgroup will provide a report outlining recommendations by\n October 2003. The draft guidelines entitled, \xe2\x80\x9cOffice of Field Operations\n District Office Recall Responsibilities\xe2\x80\x9d which was issued to District Offices\n in March 2003 will be finalized by March 2004. The final FSIS\n recommendations will be implemented by July 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n The proposed action is not sufficient to reach management decision. We\n do not consider detention and seizure of adulterated product to be\n sufficient enforcement action against firms that do not fulfill their recall\n notification responsibilities. To reach management decision, FSIS needs\n to provide the details of the changes that will be implemented in recall\n policies and procedures and the timeframe for implementation.\n\n Develop effectiveness check criteria for\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 17 monitoring the universe of potential\n effectiveness checks and documenting the\n number of required individual checks\n completed, as well as establishing substantive and quantitative criteria for\n determining whether recalls are effective.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS plans to convene an internal workgroup to provide recommendations\n as to how to improve the recall effectiveness checks process. The\n workgroup will also provide recommendations designed to ensure that\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 58\n\x0c FSIS has a mechanism in place to ensure that on an ongoing basis,\n District Managers comply with recall procedures and assure that COs\xe2\x80\x99\n determinations are reviewed, analyzed and acted on. In addition to\n providing recommendations to ensure that District Offices are properly\n carrying out their recall responsibilities, the workgroup will be expected to\n develop recommendations for effectiveness check criteria, including\n establishing substantive and quantitative criteria for determining whether\n recalls are effective. The workgroup will provide a report outlining\n recommendations by October 2003. The recommendations will be\n finalized by March 2004. The final FSIS recommendations will be\n implemented by July 2004.\n\n As part of the recall process improvement effort, FSIS will examine and\n include as appropriate, provisions to establish criteria to assess the overall\n effectiveness of a recall, to reconcile planned effectiveness checks to\n those checks actually performed, to identify corrective actions to be taken\n when deficiencies are noted, etc. This information will be assembled and\n formalized in directives. The management controls, responsibilities, and\n oversight roles for this process will be clearly delineated in the directive.\n\n OIG Position\n\n The proposed action is not sufficient to reach management decision. To\n reach management decision, FSIS needs to provide the details of the\n changes that will be implemented in recall policies and procedures and the\n timeframe for implementation.\n\n\n Galligan records pertaining to production,\n FINDING NO. 9 distribution, and sanitation activities were\n either inadequate or nonexistent. Galligan\n PLANT PRODUCTION RECORDS itself had no company policies for production\n WERE NOT DETAILED ENOUGH records of any kind, and FSIS had not codified\n TO TRACK PRODUCT specific record requirements to ensure that\n DISBURSEMENT pertinent manufacturing activities were\n documented for regulatory review. While most\n companies keep the transaction records\n required by FSIS regulations, the production records needed are those\n that allow a company to trace the source and distribution of product that is\n later identified as contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The lack of\n adequate production records diminished the ability of FSIS to exercise\n appropriate oversight and contributed to the untimely removal of\n potentially contaminated ground beef product from commerce.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 59\n\x0c Regulations require companies to maintain records that will fully and\n correctly disclose all transactions in the business subject to the Act42 and\n require that SSOPs describe all procedures an official establishment will\n conduct daily, before and during operations, sufficient to prevent direct\n contamination or adulteration of product(s).43 SSOPs shall specify the\n frequency with which each procedure in the SSOP is to be conducted and\n identify the establishment employees responsible for the implementation\n and maintenance of such procedures. However, regulations do not\n require that production records be kept. HACCP record keeping principles\n require the plant to record its monitoring of CCPs, but they do not specify\n any requirements for production records.\n\n The plant sales manager at Galligan said that there are no internal\n company policies or requirements that specify the preparation of\n production records of any kind. A plant production employee did maintain\n limited unofficial records of ground beef production in a notebook. This\n notebook showed the products, day, lot number, amount of product, raw\n meat ingredients, and the source (company) of the raw product. However,\n the sales manager pointed out that the entries in the notebook may not\n accurately reflect the production sequence. He told us plant personnel\n had performed a cleanup after production of product (later known to be\n contaminated with E. coli O157:H7) and before the production of beef\n pepper patties. The notebook did not corroborate this statement.\n\n FSIS officials stated that there are no FSIS requirements regarding\n whether establishments must maintain production records. Therefore,\n there are no policies specifying the content of plant production records. At\n our request, the supervisory compliance officer (SCO) analyzed the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s available ground beef production records. Of the\n 20 sample cases he reviewed, the SCO found no instances where plant\n personnel recorded enough production information to immediately identify\n the specific supplier\xe2\x80\x99s product that was used. In addition, the TSC\n personnel who assisted us confirmed that the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP\n plan had no record keeping requirements. We also noted that there were\n no production records maintained for the chicken, pork, or other beef\n products.\n\n We reviewed the available production and distribution records for Galligan\n in an attempt to determine whether this plant removed from commerce all\n contaminated product they produced from contaminated raw product that\n they received from ConAgra. The available production records for\n June 14, 2002, showed that Galligan produced (1) ground beef patties,\n (2) ground beef pepper patties, and (3) bulk ground beef, in that order.\n\n42\n 9 CFR 320.1, Records Required to be Maintained, dated January 1, 2002.\n43\n 9 CFR 416.12, Development of Sanitation SOPs, dated January 1, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 60\n\x0c Both the ground beef patties and the bulk ground beef were produced with\n product from ConAgra that was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.\n According to production records, the pepper patties were produced from\n product received from another plant, but they were nevertheless produced\n between two rounds of production that were confirmed positive for E. coli\n O157:H7, and there was no documentation to show that plant employees\n cleaned the equipment after producing the contaminated ground beef\n patties. As a result, it was questionable whether the ground beef patties\n did not also contaminate the pepper patties.\n\n We attempted, in conjunction with plant management, to identify and\n account for the distribution of 49 boxes of beef pepper patties that were\n potentially contaminated. We could only account for 11 boxes that\n available records showed had been shipped. Thirty-eight boxes were not\n accounted for with available records. On August 30, 2002, following our\n visit, the plant voluntarily recalled about 980 pounds of pepper patties,\n based on our review at the plant.\n\n Following our review, an FSIS Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement,\n and Review (OPEER) team initiated a review at Galligan at the request of\n the FSIS National Office. The OPEER draft report concluded that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The voluntary recall of the pepper patties might have occurred earlier\n if inspection personnel had recognized the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s production\n record limitations;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The compliance officer could have questioned the pepper patty\n production further by not accepting oral statements that a proper\n cleanup was made before production of the pepper patties;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The circuit supervisor provided minimal involvement and oversight of\n the circumstances that led to the voluntary recall of the pepper patties;\n and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The nature of the establishment records contributed to a slow\n response to initiate a voluntary recall.\n\n The review team\xe2\x80\x99s draft report noted that an FSIS compliance officer was\n dispatched to the establishment on June 19, 2002. The compliance officer\n reviewed plant production records for June 14, 2002, as well as incoming\n raw product and sales invoices. The draft report stated:\n\n The production records for June 14, 2002, show that three types of\n ground products were produced on that day. The records do not\n show that a cleanup was performed between the different products;\n however, plant management orally stated that there was a cleanup.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 61\n\x0c The OPEER draft report indicated that the inspector at Galligan satisfied\n the compliance officer that a proper cleanup was done before the pepper\n patties were produced. The report also showed that the compliance\n officer found no record of production for June 12, 2002. On this date,\n another ground beef sample had been taken and was found to be\n contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The report showed that plant\n personnel later furnished an addendum to the production records for\n June 12, 2002, that appeared to be documented some time after the\n June 12 production.\n\n The draft OPEER report supports our conclusion that company records\n were insufficient to allow for an adequate accounting for products\n produced at the plant. It reported that records were not adequate to show\n the source of the raw product used in finished product, the dates of\n production, or the locations where finished products were shipped. It also\n reported that there was no documented evidence of cleanup on June 14,\n 2002, after the contaminated production and before production of the\n pepper patties.\n\n In Finding No. 8, we detail additional problems concerning production\n records. We noted that the primary effectiveness check for distributor A\n showed that distributor personnel would not be able to trace product to\n any particular retailer because the product was given a new lot code when\n it was received at the distribution center.\n\n Establish minimum acceptable requirements\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 18 for an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s production records.\n Ensure that these production record\n requirements are adequate to facilitate\n tracebacks; direct that these requirements be incorporated into each\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan; and periodically verify the records for\n sufficiency.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS Directive 8080.1 (Enclosure No. 7), \xe2\x80\x9cRecall of Meat and Poultry\n Products,\xe2\x80\x9d provides guidance to industry on developing a recall plan.\n FSIS recommends that the recall plan specify that product production and\n distribution records be maintained by establishments such that they can\n facilitate identification and location of products that may need to be\n recalled. FSIS will revise Directive 8080.1 to provide additional guidance\n on the establishments\xe2\x80\x99 production records. Also, FSIS will work to issue\n additional guidance through a Federal Register Notice that details how\n language in 9 CFR 320.1 \xe2\x80\x9cRecords required to be kept,\xe2\x80\x9d would be utilized\n to ensure the establishment records are adequate to facilitate tracebacks.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 62\n\x0c FSIS will revise and issue an updated FSIS Directive 8080.1 by\n October 2003. FSIS will issue a Federal Register Notice by\n December 2003.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n Verify that sanitation procedures at Galligan\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 19 are always properly documented by the plant.\n\n\n FSIS Response\n\n On May 7, 2003, FSIS conducted a confirmation and verification review at\n the Galligan Wholesale Meat, Est. 6475, Denver, Colorado, to review\n deficiencies and needed improvements identified during the OIG audit.\n The review specifically focused on verifying the corrective actions required\n to improve the plant\xe2\x80\x99s SSOP plan and the production documents for\n ground beef and other ground products at the establishment.\n\n As a result of the review, new record-keeping practices have been\n instituted at the establishment to more closely monitor all products used in\n the production of ground beef. The establishment\xe2\x80\x99s sanitation procedures\n have been documented. A log book is being kept with all fresh beef\n suppliers listed for each batch of ground product, lot numbers, production\n dates and all pertinent information on the labeled products. Finished\n product identification including total box count, total weight and finished\n product lot numbers is also recorded in the log.\n\n In addition, on June 17, 2002, FSIS issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant\n Performance System Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory\n Guideline (Enclosure No. 6). These documents provide specific\n instructions and guidance on how to assess the performance of inspection\n personnel in the PR/HACCP system environment and for verifying that\n inspection personnel are carrying out their responsibilities. These include\n applying the appropriate inspection methods using effective regulatory\n decision making, documenting findings appropriately, and when\n warranted, implementing enforcement actions properly.\n\n The Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review (OPEER) will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the area. Audits, evaluations, and\n reviews will be conducted to verify implementation and measure the\n effectiveness of the corrective actions.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 63\n\x0c OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n During the recall, ConAgra offered to control\n FINDING NO. 10 the E. coli O157:H7 contamination of its\n ground beef by introducing lactic acid into the\n FSIS VIOLATED POLICY WHEN IT product during production. In approving this\n APPROVED THE POST-RECALL use of lactic acid, FSIS reviewers did not\n USE OF LACTIC ACID regard the process as a new technology; even\n though FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 technical staff was unaware it\n had ever been tried before. Whenever\n establishments intend to introduce a new technology, FSIS must\n document its analysis of the scientific validity of the process. In the case\n of ConAgra, however, the reviewers lacked sufficient evidence showing\n how they concluded the use of lactic acid in ground beef would produce a\n safe and wholesome product. The FSIS review team did not thoroughly\n document its analysis of the data ConAgra provided because it was trying\n to expedite its decisions to allow ConAgra to take corrective action in\n response to an NOIE. Although it was finally determined that ConAgra\n ground beef processed with lactic acid was safe, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 initial,\n undocumented approvals were open to challenge and raised questions\n within FSIS about the need to relabel the product. We found, however,\n scientific studies that documented that the use of lactic acid may raise the\n cooking temperature necessary to destroy the E. coli O157:H7\n contaminant.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 Approval Process for the Use of Lactic Acid\n\n On July 18, 2002, FSIS informed ConAgra in an NOIE letter that it\n intended to withhold the marks of inspection and suspend the assignment\n of inspectors at the plant. In an effort to prevent implementation of the\n enforcement action, ConAgra submitted a plan to FSIS outlining what\n corrective and preventive measures the plant intended to implement. One\n of the corrective actions proposed by ConAgra was to add lactic acid to its\n ground beef.\n\n Before its 2002 recalls, the ConAgra plant was spraying lactic acid on\n carcasses as an antimicrobial intervention during slaughter operations.\n This intervention is commonly used by facilities that slaughter beef, and\n was included in ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan. However, TSC officials who\n assisted us during the audit informed us that they were not aware of any\n beef processor adding lactic acid to its ground beef at the time the beef\n was ground. ConAgra submitted its support for the use of lactic acid as an\n\n45\n 21 CFR 184.1061 (Lactic Acid), dated April 1, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 64\n\x0c intervention against E. coli O157:H7 as part of its effort to satisfy FSIS that\n the enforcement measures stipulated in the NOIE were unnecessary.\n\n FSIS assembled a Technical Assessment Group team to review\n ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s proposals. The team reviewed the plant\xe2\x80\x99s documentation,\n including the use of lactic acid treatment in ground beef. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 overall\n conclusion was that the documents supporting the HACCP plan revisions\n were scientifically sound. ConAgra subsequently started incorporating\n lactic acid in its ground beef.\n\n We asked FSIS to provide us with support for its decision to approve the\n plant\xe2\x80\x99s use of lactic acid in ground beef. FSIS National Office officials told\n us that the information submitted by ConAgra was reviewed, but that FSIS\n did not formally document its analysis on the use of lactic acid. The\n officials stated that ConAgra submitted a considerable amount of\n documentation on a variety of topics at various times, and the review team\n was charged with reviewing all the information and making a decision\n within a month. These factors limited the amount of formal documentation\n FSIS could prepare to support its review.\n\n FSIS officials explained that their approval was based on the Food and\n Drug Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (FDA) acceptance of lactic acid as generally safe\n when it is used as an antimicrobial agent.45 Antimicrobial agents are\n defined as substances used to preserve food by preventing growth of\n microorganisms and subsequent spoilage.46 Because lactic acid is\n considered generally safe by the FDA, FSIS considered it safe for use as\n an antimicrobial agent in ground beef.\n\n With assistance from the TSC, we examined the use of lactic acid in\n ground beef and we identified the following concerns:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We could not locate any evidence to show that the E. coli O157:H7\n pathogen in ground beef acts as a spoilage organism;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We could not locate any evidence to show that lactic acid aids in\n preserving ground beef through a material reduction in the numbers of\n the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We found two studies that indicate that exposure of E. coli O157:H7 to\n moderately acidic conditions (lactic acid) can increase the pathogen\xe2\x80\x99s\n ability to survive cooking;47 and\n46\n 21 CFR 170.3 (Definitions), dated April 1, 2002.\n47\n Agricultural Research Service, Effect of PH-Dependent, Stationary Phase Acid Resistance on the\nThermal Tolerance of Escherichia Coli O157:H7, January 26, 1998. Also see Food Technology,\nFoodborne Disease Significance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Other Enterohemorrhagic E. coli,\nOctober 1997.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 65\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 We found one study that concluded that lactic acid, individually or in\n combination with other treatments (fast freezing, pulsed electric field,\n sodium lactate, and citric acid), did not significantly reduce E. coli\n O157:H7 numbers when applied at different stages throughout the\n beef burger manufacturing process.48\n\n Absent FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 written analysis of ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s use of lactic acid as an\n additive to ground beef, it is not clear to what extent FSIS thoroughly\n considered all the available scientific data concerning the use of lactic\n acid, including studies that indicate a counter-hygienic effect of that use.\n\n ConAgra applied about 440 gallons of 2 percent lactic acid solution to\n about 1 million pounds of raw ground beef over 13 days between\n August 12 and September 11, 2002. FSIS National Office officials\n informed us that ConAgra intends to discontinue use of lactic acid in its\n ground beef.\n\n Labeling Requirements\n\n Missing from ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s documentation for using the lactic acid was\n information that showed the acid had no technical effect on the product\n after processing. As an antimicrobial intervention, the acid was intended\n to have a technical effect during processing only. If it continued to have a\n technical effect in the finished product, ConAgra would have to re-label its\n beef to declare the presence of the lactic acid.49 Federal regulations\n define a misbranded product as one whose labeling is false or misleading\n in any particulars.50\n\n At the time ConAgra proposed to use lactic acid in its ground beef, FSIS\n officials stated that the process would likely result in a labeling\n requirement. An internal FSIS memorandum, dated August 13, 2002,\n noted, in part, that:\n\n The study provided by ConAgra as scientific support for the use of\n lactic acid indicates that the treatment does not significantly alter\n the color or odor of the product. However, the use would trigger\n labeling requirements to declare a descriptive statement of the\n product and the water/moisture gain or retention, if any remains\n after processing. In addition, there may be other technical effects\n to be considered, e.g., change in pH of the final product that would\n need consideration.\n48\n Irish Agriculture and Food Development Agency, Control of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Beefburgers,\nApril 2001.\n49\n Section on Incidental Additives, 2c, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, August 1996.\n50\n 9 CFR 301.2 (Definitions).\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 66\n\x0c An FSIS e-mail on August 15, 2002, from a National Office official to the\n Boulder District Office stated, in part, that:\n\n The presence of the lactic acid would be required to appear as a\n part of the identity statement unless the company can provide\n information that shows that there is no sustained technical effect in\n the ground beef.\n\n FSIS National Office officials informed us that ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s ground beef\n label did not declare the lactic acid and that the company never provided\n FSIS with any documentation to show that the lactic acid did not remain\n after processing or that it had no technical effect. This, according to the\n National Office e-mail, caused the product to be misbranded, as defined\n by regulations.51 In a conference call on November 4, 2002, between\n FSIS National Office officials and OIG, FSIS officials agreed that use of\n the lactic acid should have been declared on ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s packaging label\n for the affected ground beef.\n\n FSIS officials at all levels were aware that in the absence of any company\n documentation proving lactic acid had no residual effects in ground beef,\n ConAgra was required to declare the lactic acid in its labeling. However,\n FSIS did not take action to ensure the company either provided the\n required documentation or made the necessary disclosures. We\n concluded that the agency\xe2\x80\x99s decisions regarding both the safety of the\n product and its labeling should have been more thoroughly documented.\n\n ConAgra officials noted at the time of our review that the ground beef with\n the lactic acid additive was being held at the plant and that it would not be\n released for sale until the plant received approval from FSIS. Company\n officials subsequently informed us that FSIS gave their approval for sale of\n the product in late November or early December 2002. According to the\n company officials, FSIS concluded that ConAgra had satisfactorily\n demonstrated that no residual lactic acid was present in the finished\n ground beef, that the acid had no effect on the product\xe2\x80\x99s shelf-life, and that\n the additive made no changes in the appearance of the product. These\n three characteristics allowed ConAgra to release the product without a\n label declaration.\n\n Document the analysis and determinations\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 20 made for the suitability of new ingredients\n used in meat or poultry products. This\n documentation should include details on the\n review process and the factors considered, how conclusions will be\n\n51\n 9 CFR 301.2 (Definitions).\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 67\n\x0c communicated to the establishment, and who will be responsible for\n ensuring that FSIS decisions are properly implemented, in particular those\n relating to product labeling requirements. Coordinate with FDA on the\n safety concerns related to the use of lactic acid in ground beef.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n On December 23, 1999, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)\n published in the Federal Register a final rule on \xe2\x80\x9cFood Ingredients and\n Sources of Radiation Listed or Approved for Use in the Production of Meat\n and Poultry Products.\xe2\x80\x9d The final rule streamlined the process for approving\n the use of food ingredients and sources of radiation in meat and poultry\n products to provide for the simultaneous review, by FSIS and the Food\n and Drug Administration (FDA), of petitions for new uses of food and color\n additives and notifications for new uses of generally recognized as safe\n (GRAS) substances that are submitted to FDA.\n Subsequent to the publication of the final rule in January 2000, FDA and\n FSIS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines\n the procedures that are followed by FDA and FSIS regarding the joint\n review of requests and petitions for the use of food ingredients and\n sources of radiation in meat and poultry products with regard to safety and\n suitability determinations. The final rule and the MOU explain that, except\n in limited circumstances, FDA will now (1) list in its regulations (21 CFR)\n food additives and sources of radiation that are safe and suitable for use\n in the production of meat or poultry products and (2) document the\n generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances that are both safe and\n suitable for use in meat and poultry products that are the subject of GRAS\n Notices they receive.\n With regard to new uses of substances that are GRAS, the MOU explains\n the process that FSIS operates jointly with FDA to perform acceptability\n (suitability) determinations. The Federal Register notice entitled \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli\n O157:H7 Contamination of Beef Products\xe2\x80\x9d (67 FR 62325) and related\n documents, such as \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on Ingredients and Sources of Radiation\n Used to Reduce Microorganisms on Carcasses, Ground Beef, and Beef\n Trimmings,\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on the Procedures for Joint Food Safety and\n Inspection (FSIS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) \xe2\x80\x93 Approval of\n Ingredients and Sources of Radiation Used in the Production of Meat and\n Poultry Products,\xe2\x80\x9d provided additional guidance. The information\n contained in these documents clearly specifies the data, documentation,\n and related requirements to support how FSIS makes suitability\n determinations. In order to document the results of suitability\n determinations, FSIS also issued Directive 7120.1, Safe and Suitable\n Ingredients Used in the Production of Meat and Poultry Products, dated\n December 2002, to communicate with inspectors and provide field\n personnel and establishments with an up-to-date list of approved\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 68\n\x0c substances for use in the production of meat and poultry products. The\n Directive is updated every few months as needed. FSIS regularly\n evaluates and updates its guidance documents as required. FSIS will\n coordinate with FDA in performing an updated acceptability determination\n on the use of lactic acid in ground beef by March 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n FSIS cites various agreements with FDA and processes that should be\n used to approve ingredients used to reduce microorganisms on\n carcasses, ground beef, and beef trimmings. During the audit, however,\n we found that FSIS did not document its determinations on the\n acceptability (suitability) determination for using lactic acid in ground beef.\n Of further concern, are the studies OIG found that questioned this\n practice, one of which was done by another USDA agency. While we\n concur with FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 proposed action to coordinate with FDA in performing\n an updated acceptability determination on the use of lactic acid in ground\n beef, to reach management decision, FSIS needs to provide the\n requirements that will be put in place that describe when acceptability\n determinations will be required and the documentation necessary to\n support the results of these internal determinations, as well as approvals\n needed.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 69\n\x0c MONITORING AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD SAFETY\nCHAPTER 3 PROCEDURES AT BEEF PRODUCTION PLANTS\n NEED TO BE IMPROVED\n\n\n Some methods and procedures practiced by FSIS and industry could be\n improved to ensure that contaminated product does not enter channels of\n commerce. In the case of ConAgra, Galligan, and Montana Quality\n Foods, we identified four areas in which controls needed strengthening or\n where managers needed to reexamine systems in place.\n\n Testing samples. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 E. coli O157:H7 testing program cannot be\n used to measure the effectiveness of HACCP on either a company or a\n nationwide basis. The sampling program, as designed, does not\n provide scientific, risk-based data to measure the extent of an existing\n hazard. Also, FSIS needs to strengthen controls over the samples it\n selects for laboratory testing. Managers at both Galligan and Montana\n Quality Foods knew when FSIS was going to take samples for E. coli\n O157:H7 testing and adjusted their production accordingly. Packaged\n samples also remained unsealed and accessible by plant personnel.\n\n HACCP plans. HACCP plans for ConAgra, Galligan, and Montana\n Quality Foods contained the seven principles required by regulation but\n were technically inadequate. Hazards were not properly analyzed and\n controls were not always established. The plants need to reassess\n their plans and correct the deficiencies.\n\n Carcass reinspections. When animal feces were observed on ConAgra\n beef carcasses during production, the plant did not reinspect an\n adequate number of carcasses to ensure the contamination was not\n also present on them. FSIS policy on such reinspections is too obscure\n to provide adequate guidance to the plants.\n\n Disposal of contaminated product. Beef trim that was returned to\n ConAgra after customer tests found the presence of E. coli O157:H7\n was repackaged and resold for cooking. FSIS did not attempt to verify\n the actual disposition of the repackaged trim because FSIS officials did\n not believe it was necessary for the agency to monitor the disposition of\n all beef product that tested positive for the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen.\n\n We also noted that FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 random sample testing of plants for pathogens\n and other contaminants does not provide meaningful performance data.\n Although the testing is intended to verify the effectiveness of the HACCP\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 70\n\x0c systems, it has not been designed to measure the extent of an existing\n hazard. A risk-based sampling plan that ultimately targets testing toward\n those plants with the greatest risk of contamination would be more\n effective.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 E. coli O157:H7 testing program cannot\n FINDING NO. 11 be used to measure the effectiveness of\n HACCP on either a company or a nationwide\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 E. COLI O157:H7 TESTING basis. The sampling program, as designed,\nPROGRAM CAN BE IMPROVED TO does not provide scientific, risk-based data to\n PROVIDE MORE MEANINGFUL measure the extent of an existing hazard. The\n PERFORMANCE DATA data that is produced does not reflect industry\n performance because a) plants like ConAgra,\n that performed their own E. coli O157:H7\n testing on carcasses were exempt from sampling of ground beef,\n b) sampling plans do not take into account all relevant plant operational or\n processing factors, and c) samples taken at the plants that are selected\n for testing are not always representative of the lot of production or final\n product. As a result, FSIS cannot rely on its random sampling program to\n detect plants like ConAgra nor can it conclude whether HACCP, as a\n program, is effective in controlling product contamination by the E. coli\n O157:H7 pathogen.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling program consists of two projects, designated MT03 and\n MT04. The MT03 project is designed to test for the E. coli pathogen and\n to stimulate industry to reduce the presence of the pathogen in raw ground\n beef.52 The MT04 project is designed to verify that plant operations are\n back under control after an MT03 test has shown the presence of the\n E. coli pathogen in beef.\n\n One of the objectives of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling program is to verify the\n effectiveness of HACCP systems.53 We concluded that the random\n sampling program is not achieving this objective or measuring the nature,\n scope, or extent of an existing hazard.\n\n a. Verifying the Effectiveness of HACCP Systems at Plants Like\n ConAgra\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling program, as designed, is not functioning to verify the\n effectiveness of HACCP systems at federally inspected plants. The\n program design, which was not designed to allow generation of\n statistical results to the entire universe of plants, is to consist of about\n\n\n52\n FSIS Directive 10,010.1, dated February 1, 1998.\n53\n \xe2\x80\x9cFSIS Sampling Programs,\xe2\x80\x9c FSIS, USDA, Washington, D.C.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 71\n\x0c 7,000 samples per year.54 The samples are divided between\n manufacturers of ground beef products in retail stores and federally\n inspected plants. Within the sample of approximately 1,700 federally\n inspected plants producing ground beef, there was a further division\n into random selection and target selection. The target sample is to\n be collected from the plants that have been identified through\n management reviews as performing below average.55 For 2002,\n FSIS targeted only 60 samples, largely because pathogens had\n already been identified in the plants where the samples were taken.\n While this method of plant selection provided some risk-based data\n with which to measure performance, it did not take into account plant\n factors such as volume of production and effectiveness of\n interventions in determining sampling frequencies.\n\n OIG understands a risk-based sampling system is one that bases\n testing on the risk a plant poses to the wholesomeness of its product\n and the number of consumers endangered by contaminated product\n originating from that plant. OIG understands a statistically-based\n sample is one that bases testing on the assumption that the test\n results will have enough scientific validity to be projected over a\n universe to identify the probable magnitude of those results. OIG\n further recognizes that the random testing used in the program is\n neither risk-based nor sufficiently scientific to produce results that\n may be projected.\n\n For its random selections, FSIS planned its sample size with the\n knowledge that a number of establishments selected for sample\n testing would not be sampled. FSIS Directive 10,010.156 provides\n exemptions from microbiological testing for the E. coli pathogen if an\n establishment meets one of three criteria:57 (1) it conducts routine\n daily testing of raw ground beef products for E. coli O157:H7; (2) it\n requires suppliers of boneless beef to certify that each lot received\n has been tested and found negative for E. coli O157:H7; or (3) it\n uses validated pathogen reduction interventions on beef carcasses,\n routinely verifies the interventions\xe2\x80\x99 effectiveness through testing for\n E. coli O157:H7, and prevents the use of boneless beef or carcasses\n from outside sources. (ConAgra was granted an exemption under\n the third criteria.)\n\n54\n The sampling is limited by the capacity of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 laboratories and has recently been expanded to about\n7,000 samples per year.\n55\n FSIS Notice 50-94 (Microbiological Testing Program for E. coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef), dated\nDecember 23, 1994.\n56\n FSIS Directive 10,010.1 (Microbiological Testing Program For E. coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef),\ndated February 1, 1998.\n57\n This exception is not valid unless the establishment has had no positive test results (related to required\nHACCP testing) within the last 6 months.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 72\n\x0c Thus, prior to the recall, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 tests for E. coli O157:H7 were neither\n risk-based, statistical, nor truly random and were not designed to\n detect HACCP failures in some individual plants, like ConAgra, or to\n determine the extent of the E. coli O157:H7 hazard industrywide.\n\n FSIS managers stated that when the sampling program was\n developed, they understood it to be risk-based rather than statistically\n based. They emphasized that FSIS considered plants that\n performed their own interventions as low risk and that by exempting\n these from testing, FSIS was testing only the higher risk\n establishments. One manager stated that FSIS had no evidence the\n self-testing plants did not present a low risk and that the ConAgra\n recall did not provide any such evidence.\n\n Subsequent to the recall, FSIS announced its intention to discontinue\n its practice of exempting plants from MT03 sampling. An FSIS\n manager stated that implementation of the exemptions was not\n uniform or adequate nationwide. We concluded that a testing\n program based on risk assessments would provide greater uniformity\n of results and greater protection to the consumer.\n\n b. Measuring the Extent of the Hazard\n\n Once a positive MT03 sample is found, FSIS procedures call for the\n collection of subsequent routine samples at the establishment where\n the positive is found, in accordance with the instructions for MT04\n testing found in FSIS Directive 10,210.1. The MT04 sampling must\n continue until 15 consecutive ground beef samples have tested\n negative for the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen.58 FSIS officials appeared\n uncertain about the scientific basis for collecting 15 consecutive\n negative ground beef samples but were able to find support for it in\n the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for\n Foods.59\n\n We determined, however, that while the International Commission on\n Microbiological Specifications for Foods supports collecting\n 15 negative verification samples, it does not provide the timeframe or\n the sampling techniques for the 15 samples. According to FSIS\n instructions, one sample is to be taken from each of the\n 15 consecutive lots produced by an establishment. A lot is defined\n\n\n58\n FSIS Directive 10,010.1 (Microbiological Testing Program For E. coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef),\ndated February 1, 1998.\n59\n Case 13 sampling plan in the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods,\nMicroorganisms in Food 7.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 73\n\x0c as the period of time from cleanup to cleanup. The sample is\n described as a 1-pound sample selected at a random time.60\n\n We concluded that the sampling timeframe and technique set forth in\n FSIS instructions may not produce a sample that is indicative of the\n extent of the hazard. The 1-pound sample from a lot of raw ground\n beef product may not be representative if the entire lot is not subject\n to sampling. Also, in our opinion, a 1-pound sample, per lot, for an\n establishment the size of ConAgra that produces 500,000 pounds of\n raw ground beef per lot is not as representative of the lot as a\n 1-pound sample from a lot produced at an establishment that\n produces only 5,000 pounds per lot. In other words, the sample size\n should be proportionate to the relative size of the lot. More samples\n should be taken for a 500,000-pound lot than for a 5,000-pound lot.\n For large producers, a sampling technique can be employed that\n allows the inspector to take smaller samples at various times in the\n production day. One industry leader as part of its regular\n microbiological testing program is currently using this procedure.\n\n To improve the usefulness of its sampling program, FSIS managers need\n to determine what they want the program to do and design it accordingly.\n They need to define specific goals, objectives, and performance measures\n for the program and incorporate them into a sampling plan design. We\n have been advised by FSIS officials that FSIS is currently undertaking a\n baseline study to develop a general microbiological description of all types\n of raw ground beef components for selected microorganisms of various\n degrees of public health concern. The microorganisms of concern for\n which quantitative data will be collected are pathogenic E. coli and\n Salmonella, which produce severe illness in humans. Other\n microorganisms for which qualitative data will be collected are generic\n E. coli, Coliforms, and Mesophilic aerobic plate counts. We believe the\n data from baseline studies like these can help give direction to the testing\n program.\n\n Perform the necessary baseline studies to\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 21 define the goals, objectives, and performance\n measurements and develop a scientific,\n risk-based sampling plan to include relevant\n factors, such as individual plant volume of production and effectiveness of\n interventions that will provide reasonable assurance that HACCP systems\n in place are effective.\n\n\n\n\n60\n FSIS Directive 10,210.1, Amendment 3 (Unified Sampling Form), effective July 1, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 74\n\x0c FSIS Response\n\n FSIS agrees that baseline studies on different raw ground beef\n components can be useful in making the allocation of verification samples\n more risk-based, measuring the national prevalence, providing a marker\n for measuring future change in pathogens, and providing input for risk\n assessments. Subject to available funding provided through\n appropriations, FSIS will conduct baseline studies to complement and\n enhance its sampling program. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling program is one\n component of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s overall verification program as specified in\n 9 CFR 417.8.\n\n FSIS will update FSIS Directive 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing\n Program for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef,\xe2\x80\x9d with more\n comprehensive procedures. These procedures will address various\n sampling scenarios such as those based on estimates of production\n volume, production types (e.g., trim), statistical process data feedback,\n and technical interventions. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 new E. coli O157:H7 verification testing\n program will be more risk-based than the current program and will place\n added emphasis on collecting more than one sample from higher risk\n operations. By increasing the number of samples FSIS collects from\n higher risk operations, FSIS will have greater confidence that the sampled\n lot is negative for E. coli O157:H7. In addition, no official establishment\n will be exempted from FSIS E. coli O157:H7 verification testing. Under\n the revised Directive, FSIS intends to sample at grinding establishments.\n When FSIS finds a positive sample at the grinding operation, FSIS then\n intends to collect subsequent samples of product from suppliers (at the\n supplying establishment). FSIS expects this new Directive to be issued by\n October 2003. FSIS expects full implementation to commence\n December 2003.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot reach management decision. To reach management decision,\n FSIS needs to provide the details as to goals, objectives, and performance\n measures to be established, and timeframe for implementation, of a\n risk-based sampling program to provide assurance that HACCP programs\n are operating effectively. Also, FSIS needs to provide an estimated date\n for completing the baseline studies.\n\n Strengthen sampling procedures so that\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 22 samples are either representative of lots being\n sampled or of production operations.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 75\n\x0c FSIS Response\n\n FSIS will continue to consider all options for strengthening its verification\n strategies, of which sampling is one component. FSIS will update FSIS\n Directive 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing Program for Escherichia coli\n O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef,\xe2\x80\x9d with more comprehensive procedures.\n These procedures will address various sampling scenarios such as those\n based on estimates of production volume, production types (e.g., trim),\n statistical process data feedback, and technical interventions.\n\n The revised Directive will be issued by October 2003. FSIS expects full\n implementation to commence December 2003.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Although FSIS has concurred with the need to update its sampling\n directive, we cannot reach management decision. To reach management\n decision, FSIS needs to provide details as to how the sampling\n procedures will be strengthened to ensure the samples are representative\n of the lot being sampled or production operations.\n\n Issue the planned revision to FSIS directives\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 23 to eliminate the current procedure that\n exempts plants performing their own testing\n from being tested by FSIS.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n This has been completed by FSIS. On April 18, 2003, FSIS issued FSIS\n Notice 11-03 (Enclosure No. 8), \xe2\x80\x9cUpdate to FSIS Directive 10,010.1,\n Microbiological Testing Program For Escherichia Coli O157:H7 in Raw\n Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d The Notice provides updated instructions to inspection\n program personnel on some of the issues covered by FSIS Directive\n 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing Program For Escherichia Coli O157:H7\n in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, the Notice provides notification that\n FSIS will be revising Directive 10,010.1.\n\n In the Notice, updated procedures that immediately went into effect were\n given to inspection program personnel that instructed them to collect raw\n ground beef samples whenever they received an FSIS Form 10,210-3 for\n microbiological sampling project MT03. Samples are to be collected\n regardless of whether the establishment had met criteria set forth in FSIS\n Directive 10,010.1, VI.B. All raw ground beef, hamburger, ground veal,\n veal or beef patties, or other products meeting the standard of identity in\n 9 CFR 319.15, are eligible for verification sampling by FSIS. Thus, plants\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 76\n\x0c are no longer exempted from sampling based on conducting their own\n testing.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 process before the recall for taking test\n FINDING NO. 12 samples did not provide assurance that\n E. coli O157:H7 would be detected if present\n STRONGER CONTROLS NEEDED in the sample. Plant officials at Galligan and\n TO ENSURE INTEGRITY OF Montana Quality Foods were aware of the\n LABORATORY SAMPLES timing of the samples, and FSIS personnel\n were willing to accommodate the plants\xe2\x80\x99\n preferred sampling time rather than sample\n during unannounced times. Under conditions like these, where\n sample-taking is partially controlled by the establishments, there is an\n increased risk that production can be manipulated and the sample integrity\n compromised.\n\n A positive test result at a plant can have substantial financial impact. The\n plant may have to conduct a recall and divert the entire lot of sampled\n product to be cooked, rendered, or in some cases destroyed. Therefore,\n there can be an incentive for plants to provide samples that are free of\n contaminants. FSIS directives61 provide that inspection program\n personnel should ensure that sample integrity and security is maintained\n at all times for samples of the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 sampling\n procedures, however, do not ensure either sample integrity or sample\n security.\n\n Sampling Controlled by the Plant\n\n Plant management at Galligan and Montana Quality Foods informed us\n that they knew when FSIS was going to take samples for E. coli O157:H7\n testing and adjusted their production accordingly. An official of Montana\n Quality Foods stated that he was aware that FSIS had to pull samples by\n about noon on the appointed day in order to have the sample ready for the\n carrier. This official stated that since the sampling is not random, he could\n protect his own product from ever being sampled. This could be done by\n delaying the start of the grinding operation to just before the time to take\n the sample and by switching at that time to product from another source.\n\n Although a change in directives allowed FSIS inspectors to take a\n monitoring sample of raw ground beef at any time, including during late\n\n61\n FSIS Directive 10,210.1, Amendment 3 (Unified Sampling Form), effective July 1, 2002.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 77\n\x0c shifts and weekends,62 we found that the inspectors were not aware of this\n change or were not taking advantage of it. Instead, they accommodated\n plant management by limiting the time when samples could be taken.\n FSIS personnel believed they were limited by carrier pickup times. They\n were not aware that under revised procedures, E. coli O157:H7 samples\n could be refrigerated or frozen for later pickup by the carrier; thus,\n samples could be taken any time during the day.\n\n At Galligan, after being notified that an FSIS sample would be collected,\n the plant would grind product for sampling at the beginning of the day. If\n the inspector was not present, the plant held the product and designated\n this lot for E. coli O157:H7 sampling. The plant conducted a cleanup and\n continued to process other ground product. The inspector then sampled\n from the lot designated by the plant for sampling, rather than taking a\n random sampling.\n\n While FSIS policy requires a plant to be notified in time for product to be\n held for sampling, FSIS must protect and control the integrity of the\n sample. In recall situations, such as that experienced by ConAgra, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n procedure could delay identification of the source of the E. coli O157:H7\n contamination.\n\n Samples Were Not Secure\n\n We found that inspectors at all three plants\xe2\x80\x94Galligan, Montana Quality\n Foods, and ConAgra\xe2\x80\x94left their packaged samples where plant personnel\n had access to the samples before pickup by the shipping agent. The\n containers had Velcro seals to allow FSIS to reuse the container. As a\n result, there is reduced assurance that integrity can be maintained.\n\n During our visit to the FSIS Western Laboratory, we observed nine boxes\n that contained product to be tested for E. coli O157:H7. Only two of these\n had intact security seals. A laboratory official estimated that only about\n 25 percent of E. coli O157:H7 samples received for testing had intact\n security seals.63\n\n A similar condition was reported in our prior report.64 We recommended\n that FSIS improve controls by issuing instructions for securing FSIS test\n samples until the samples are in the possession of the shipping agent and\n review security to insure instructions are being followed. FSIS stated in its\n May 18, 2000, response to the draft report that:\n\n\n62\n FSIS Directive 10,210.1, Amendment 3 (Unified Sampling Form), effective July 1, 2002.\n63\n FSIS Directive 7355.1, Sample Seals for Program Samples, dated October 20, 1992.\n64\n Audit Report No. 24001-3-At, Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System,\ndated June 2000.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 78\n\x0c FSIS has undertaken an effort to improve sample security. Currently,\n FSIS Directive 7355.1 outlines procedures for sample security. The\n FSIS laboratories are revising Directive 7355.1 to reflect a more\n fail-safe procedure, which is estimated to be completed by\n September 30, 2000. This will require developing new forms,\n educating laboratory personnel, and training inspectors.\n\n The directive strengthening security over samples was issued on\n December 3, 2002. We reviewed the new procedures and determined\n that although they strengthened requirements for sealing laboratory\n samples, they did not ensure that FSIS would maintain custody and\n control of the samples until an approved carrier picked up the shipment.\n We are therefore recommending that the December 2002 directive be\n revised to include instructions concerning the chain of custody of the\n samples.\n\n Revise current instructions to require that\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 24 laboratory samples be under the direct\n custody and control of FSIS personnel until\n the sample can be provided directly to the\n delivery service.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS disagrees with the recommendation as written. The\n recommendation should be restated to ask FSIS to ensure the integrity of\n its sample delivery service. The requirement to have samples remain\n under the direct custody and control of FSIS personnel has significant\n resource implications with marginal or limited additional assurances to be\n gained. Idling personnel waiting for the handoff of samples to delivery\n personnel would result in workforce inefficiencies.\n\n FSIS agrees that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure chain\n of custody for samples. Consequently, on December 3, 2002, FSIS\n issued Directive 7355.1 (Enclosure No. 9), Revision 2, \xe2\x80\x9cUse of Sample\n Seals for Program Samples and Other Applications.\xe2\x80\x9d This Directive\n ensures the integrity of samples submitted to laboratories for analysis or\n held for incubation in the establishment as agar plate. The revision\n provides guidelines for proper sealing of samples and shipping boxes. All\n sample packages (with the exception of investigation samples) shipped to\n FSIS laboratories are sealed and identified using a three-part system.\n This system identifies and links the sample with the submission form and\n the shipping container. When properly sealed, each laboratory sample\n package will have three separate but identically numbered/bar-coded\n identification labels, as follows:\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 79\n\x0c 1. One small bar-coded label is affixed to the sample submission form.\n 2. A medium-sized bar-coded label, the \xe2\x80\x9cFSIS Laboratory Sample\n Identification Label\xe2\x80\x9d is placed on the primary container.\n 3. A large bar-coded label, the \xe2\x80\x9cFSIS Laboratory Sample Container Seal,\xe2\x80\x9d\n is placed on the shipping container.\n\n The inspector retains a record of the seal packet used for each sample\n sent to the laboratory. An additional, small bar-coded label may be placed\n on the inspector\xe2\x80\x99s file copy of the submission form or on a log sheet\n indicating to which sample the seal corresponds. For shipping the\n samples to the laboratories, the inspection personnel choose the carrier\n that assures the least time in transit.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot reach management decision. While we agree that the revised\n directive strengthened requirements for sealing laboratory samples, the\n intent of the recommendation is to provide adequate physical security over\n the sample. Adequate physical security is essential to deter deliberate\n breach of the packaging; the new security procedures do nothing to\n protect the samples from parties who wish to prevent any testing of the\n sample at all. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s visit to an FSIS laboratory during the audit disclosed\n that an estimated 25 percent of the samples arrived for testing with broken\n seals. FSIS officials told us that the in-plant inspector is not instructed to\n take a replacement sample. To reach management decision, FSIS needs\n to provide acceptable alternative actions to mitigate the cited\n vulnerabilities and a timeframe for completing its actions.\n\n Require district offices to conduct periodic\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 25 reviews to ensure compliance with sampling\n procedures.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n To enhance management controls and oversight of its field inspection\n personnel, FSIS issued Directive 4430.3, \xe2\x80\x9cIn-Plant Performance System\n Reviews,\xe2\x80\x9d (IPPS) and a comprehensive Supervisory Guideline (Enclosure\n No. 6). These documents provide specific instructions and guidance on\n how to assess the performance of inspection personnel in the PR/HACCP\n system environment and for verifying that inspection personnel are\n carrying out their responsibilities. These include applying the appropriate\n inspection methods, using effective regulatory decision making,\n documenting findings appropriately and when warranted, and\n implementing enforcement actions properly. This would also include\n ensuring compliance with sampling procedures.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 80\n\x0c The Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review (OPEER) will\n monitor the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in the area. Audits, evaluations, and\n reviews will be conducted to verify implementation and measure the\n effectiveness of the corrective actions.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot reach management decision. To reach management decision,\n FSIS needs to provide additional information on the procedures OPEER\n will use to verify compliance with sampling procedures and a timeframe for\n implementation.\n\n FSIS did not determine whether ConAgra and\n FINDING NO. 13 the two grinding operations had scientific\n evidence in support of the processes they\n FSIS DOES NOT REVIEW HACCP announced in their HACCP plans to prevent or\n PLANS FOR REGULATORY eliminate food safety hazards. FSIS reviews\n COMPLIANCE HACCP plans to determine if the plans\n address the seven principles of HACCP (see\n the Background section of this report), but\n FSIS has acknowledged that their in-plant staff lacks the necessary skills\n to critically analyze the adequacy of the HACCP plans. We consider the\n lack of adequate technical assessments of HACCP plans and sufficient,\n competent staff to make that assessment, a material weakness in FSIS\xe2\x80\x99\n oversight of HACCP implementation. As a result, there is reduced\n assurance that the HACCP systems were controlling food safety hazards\n in the three establishments.\n\n FSIS inspection personnel are responsible to ensure the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n initial HACCP plan is apparently responding to all regulatory requirements.\n FSIS inspection personnel also perform ongoing basic compliance checks\n that focus on whether an establishment has failed to institute the system\n features required by FSIS regulations (e.g., when an HACCP plan does\n not identify the corrective action to be taken in response to a control failure\n at a CCP).\n\n FSIS periodically schedules reviews to examine elements of an\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan. The inspections may include reviews to\n determine:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 if the establishment is maintaining records documenting the\n monitoring of CCPs;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 if the establishment is verifying implementation of its HACCP plan by\n performing verification activities;\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 81\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 if the HACCP plan assigns responsibility for taking corrective action\n when a control (e.g., temperature) deviates from its critical limits;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 if the establishment reassesses its HACCP plan when an unforeseen\n hazard arises; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 if the establishment maintains documentary support for its HACCP\n plan.\n\n For part of our review, FSIS technical representatives assisted us in\n reviewing HACCP records for technical adequacy and correlation with\n pertinent FSIS regulations. These FSIS representatives found that the\n HACCP plans at ConAgra, Galligan, and Montana Quality Foods\n contained all seven required basic principles but were technically\n inadequate. There were problems with the plants\xe2\x80\x99 hazard analyses,\n critical limits, records, and monitoring and verification procedures. These\n problems continued to exist even though FSIS in-plant inspection\n personnel periodically reviewed the HACCP plans. We found that these\n reviews did not contain adequate documentation to support the analyses\n made by the inspection personnel. See exhibit E for a summary of\n deficiencies identified by the FSIS technical representatives.\n\n FSIS technical representatives noted the following deficiencies in the\n HACCP plans at the three plants visited for this audit:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 At ConAgra, three HACCP plans (slaughter, fabrication, and\n raw-ground) had deficiencies in their hazard analysis; CCP\n determinations; critical limits; corrective actions; and monitoring,\n validation, verification, and reassessment procedures. There was no\n indication that ConAgra reassessed its fabrication HACCP plan, even\n though the plant continued to have numerous positive E. coli O157:H7\n test results for its beef trimmings. The FSIS representatives concluded\n that the HACCP plan no longer met regulatory requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 At Galligan, two HACCP plans (raw-ground and raw not-ground) were\n deficient in their hazard analysis; CCP determinations; critical limits;\n corrective actions; and monitoring, validation, verification, and\n reassessment procedures. In January 2002, when the company\n reassessed two of its plans\xe2\x80\x94for raw-ground product and raw\n not-ground product\xe2\x80\x94it eliminated the freezing and storage step as a\n CCP. A Galligan company official stated that the CCP was removed,\n in part, because an FSIS inspector recommended it no longer be\n considered a CCP for HACCP purposes. The FSIS technical\n representative noted during our audit that freezing and storage meets\n the definition of a CCP. Galligan also did not conduct a reassessment\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 82\n\x0c of its HACCP plan, as required, each time the regulatory samples\n collected from its final ground beef product tested positive for the\n E. coli O157:H7 pathogen; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 At Montana Quality Foods, five HACCP plans (slaughter, raw\n not-ground, and three raw-ground) had deficiencies in their hazard\n analysis, critical limits, records, and monitoring and verification\n procedures. Documents were not provided to support most of the\n critical limits established for the temperature of the product, and\n records did not indicate which type of verification procedure was\n conducted or what the results of the verification were.\n\n Prior reviews by both GAO65 and OIG66 found deficiencies similar to those\n identified during this audit. GAO reported that FSIS verification reviews at\n 47 plants considered as having potentially serious food safety risks found\n significant violations of regulatory requirements in HACCP plans at 44 of\n the plants. In our report, we recommended that FSIS implement a system\n of oversight to ensure that hazard analyses include all food safety hazards\n that are reasonably likely to occur and that HACCP plans contain correctly\n identified CCPs, adequate critical limits, and corrective actions. In\n response to that audit, FSIS maintained that it would not approve the\n CCPs selected but that it would challenge the adequacy of HACCP plans\n that were inadequately supported. FSIS also recognized that additional\n instructions needed to be developed for inspection personnel to begin\n assessing the completeness of the HACCP plans.\n\n District office personnel advised that FSIS personnel assigned to the\n ConAgra plant had not received any HACCP-related training since the fall\n of 1997. FSIS National Office officials also noted that FSIS inspection\n personnel do not have the technical expertise to assist companies in\n developing their HACCP plans and they have been directed by the FSIS\n National Office not to provide plants any technical guidance.\n\n It is FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 policy not to approve HACCP plans; however, FSIS National\n Office officials indicated that they have hired and properly trained a force\n of CSOs67 to help review HACCP plans. Furthermore, they indicated that\n there are plans to hire and train more CSOs and to train some veterinary\n medical officers on how to evaluate HACCP plans and supporting\n documentation. We reviewed FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 written proposal for hiring and training\n qualified staff to review HACCP plans, and we found that the proposal\n lacks an analysis of how many qualified staff will be needed to review all\n\n65\n GAO Report No. GAO-02-902, Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules Needed to\nReduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses, dated August 2002.\n66\n OIG Audit Report No. 24001-3-At, Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point\nSystem, dated June 2000.\n67\n As of December 31, 2002, there were about 105 CSOs.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 83\n\x0c HACCP plans and how much time will be needed to complete the reviews.\n GAO had previously noted that only about 6 percent of the officers that\n FSIS needs are currently on staff, and that FSIS managers in two large\n districts expressed concern that it may take years to assess the plans for\n all plants in the district.\n\n It is evident from the deficiencies disclosed during this audit that the\n current system of in-plant inspectors monitoring an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n compliance with FSIS regulatory requirements cannot ensure that major\n shortcomings in an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s HACCP plan will be identified and\n corrected. Implementation of the CSO program may fill the need for a\n staff trained in HACCP principles, but we question whether the CSOs or\n other trained employees will be available in a timely manner and in\n sufficient numbers to review the more than 5,000 HACCP plans in use and\n the supporting documentation on a continuing basis.\n\n Require the three plants to revise their\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 26 HACCP plans to correct the cited deficiencies\n noted during our reviews.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS took immediate action to ensure that the establishments\xe2\x80\x99 HACCP\n plans were corrected to address the deficiencies uncovered in the audit.\n As a result of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 immediate actions, several changes were made by the\n establishments including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ConAgra made major modifications to its slaughter floor. Additional\n major improvements are planned over the next several months.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Galligan Wholesale Meat, Est. 6475, Denver, Colorado modified its\n SSOP and HACCP plans to correct the deficiencies noted during the\n OIG audit.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Montana Quality Foods, Est. # 7679, Miles City, Montana plant\n management reassessed its HACCP plan. FSIS inspection personnel\n have reviewed the HACCP plans and activities as required verifying\n that Montana Quality is meeting all of its obligations with respect to\n both the original part of its HACCP plan as well as the new CCP, which\n was added as a result of the enforcement action.\n\n Concerning ConAgra, the changes made and incorporated into the SSOP\n programs for the entire plant were re-evaluated and modified this year to\n improve the company\xe2\x80\x99s documentation of corrective actions in meeting\n 9 CFR 416.15 in addition to tracking and resolving trends of unsanitary\n conditions.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 84\n\x0c The changes made and incorporated into the HACCP program were\n because of numerous reassessments as a result of the enforcement\n actions taken by FSIS at the plant, circuit, and District levels. In addition,\n the plant reassessed its HACCP plan as required by FSIS Notice 44-02 for\n E. coli O157:H7 (Enclosure No. 3).\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept the management decision.\n\n Develop a written, time-phased plan for\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 27 completing CSO reviews of HACCP plans.\n The time-phased plan should include a\n strategy for hiring and training staff.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n The determination as to whether a comprehensive food safety\n assessment is needed at an establishment can be based on several\n factors. As such, District Offices regularly review PBIS data, including\n NRs, FSIS sampling results, and other available information to determine\n if a CSO assessment is needed. Also, often a triggering event occurs,\n such as a consumer complaint, a food borne illness outbreak, or a specific\n food safety issue, that warrants conducting a comprehensive food safety\n assessment. Presently, there are 104 persons trained in the CSO\n methodology, making it impossible to conduct comprehensive food safety\n assessments at every federally inspected facility. There are\n approximately 7500 establishments operating under a grant of inspection.\n Because of this, District Managers are expected to monitor activities in\n their districts and to use discretion in determining where comprehensive\n food safety assessments are most needed.\n\n As of June 24, 2003, there have been 677 comprehensive food safety\n assessments completed by CSOs to verify E. coli O157:H7\n reassessments at establishments that conduct beef slaughter and ground\n beef operations, and we estimate that by year 2005, CSOs will conduct\n such assessments at 2,500 establishments. FSIS has focused its initial\n food safety assessments at those plants that produced the largest\n volumes of product.\n\n FSIS has asked for an additional $5.7 million in its fiscal year 2004 budget\n request to retool training, to accomplish our public health goals, and\n ensure that our CSO methodology continues to be carried out. Over the\n next several years, we will continue to train additional employees in the\n CSO methodology, including training 1000 VMOs in the CSO and\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 85\n\x0c enforcement methodology by year 2007.\n\n OIG Position\n\n The adequacy of establishment HACCP plans is a critical control\n necessary to meet the goals of HACCP and pathogen reduction. Based\n on the information contained in the response, we cannot reach\n management decision. We agree that the current number of persons\n trained is inadequate to conduct comprehensive food safety assessments\n at every facility. However, to reach management decision for this\n recommendation, FSIS needs to provide a time-phased plan for targeting\n and reviewing establishment HACCP plans. The plan should include an\n analysis of how many qualified staff are needed, as well as a viable\n strategy for hiring and training.\n\n Develop an FSIS review program that includes\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 28 a periodic (1 to 2-year) reassessment of\n HACCP plans.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n On October 7, 2002, Federal Register Notice 62325, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7\n Contamination of Beef Products,\xe2\x80\x9d (Enclosure No. 1) was issued to advise\n establishments of their obligation to reassess their HACCP plans for raw\n beef products. On November 4, 2002, FSIS issued FSIS Notice 44-02,\n \xe2\x80\x9cInstructions for Verifying E. coli O157:H7 Reassessment.\xe2\x80\x9d This Notice\n provided inspection personnel instructions for performing verification of\n E. coli O157:H7 reassessments. These documents will help ensure that\n establishments are reassessing their HACCP plans in accordance with\n 9 CFR 417.4, which requires that HACCP plans be reassessed at least\n annually.\n\n In addition, in 2002 CSOs were assigned to District Offices to conduct\n comprehensive assessments to verify that establishment control systems\n are well-documented, supported by scientific information, and validated.\n Currently, CSOs are conducting comprehensive assessments of HACCP\n plans at all large raw beef product establishments. These comprehensive\n assessments are being conducted as part of the October 2002 directive\n from FSIS that required all beef slaughter establishments to reexamine\n their food safety strategies in light of evidence that E. coli O157:H7 was\n more prevalent in live animals than previously thought. The\n comprehensive examination of HACCP plans by CSOs at raw beef\n product establishments was a proactive step to strengthen pathogen\n prevention practices, and will expand to include smaller establishments in\n the future.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 86\n\x0c As of June 24, 2003, there have been 677 comprehensive food safety\n assessments completed by FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 107 CSOs to verify E. coli O157:H7\n reassessments at federally inspected establishments that conduct beef\n slaughter and ground beef operations. FSIS estimates that by the year\n 2005, comprehensive assessments to verify E. coli O157:H7\n reassessments will be completed for approximately 2500 remaining\n establishments. These reviews will be conducted on a recurring basis.\n\n Additionally, the Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement, and Review\n will establish an annual review plan to conduct regular reviews of in plant\n inspection activities and facility compliance with PR/HACCP. The\n domestic reviews are expected to begin March 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We cannot accept the management decision. To reach management\n decision, FSIS needs to provide the details of a requirement for recurring\n reassessments of establishment HACCP plans. Also, FSIS needs to\n provide information as to the scope of OPEER\xe2\x80\x99s reviews of inspection\n activities and facility compliance.\n\n Develop a technical assistance program using\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 29 properly trained and qualified employees that\n could provide guidance to establishments on\n HACCP plans development and maintenance\n requirements.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n FSIS recognizes that effective training of both FSIS and industry\n employees is vital to the success of the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP\n Systems final rule. Consequently, FSIS is assessing the viability of\n conducting joint training with industry. Various kinds of establishments,\n including small and very small plants, must have access to training,\n technical assistance, and other resources that will facilitate HACCP\n implementation. Therefore, FSIS has developed and implemented an\n approach to training and technical assistance that is designed to support\n HACCP implementation within available resource constraints.\n\n FSIS has designed several guidance documents to help industry reduce\n the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7. On October 7, 2002, Federal Register\n 62325, \xe2\x80\x9cE. coli O157:H7 Contamination of Beef Products\xe2\x80\x9d (Enclosure\n No. 1) was published with related guidance documents. In particular, the\n following documents were published as guidance to industry:\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 87\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance for Minimizing the Risk of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and\n Salmonella in Beef Slaughter Operations,\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance for Beef Grinders and Suppliers of Boneless and Trim\n Products \xe2\x80\x93 Guide for Minimizing Impact Associated with Food Safety\n Hazards in Raw Ground Meat and Other FSIS Regulated Products,\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on Ingredients and Sources of Radiation Used to Reduce\n Microorganisms on Carcasses, Ground Beef, and Beef Trimmings,\xe2\x80\x9d\n and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on the Procedures for Joint Food Safety and Inspection\n Service (FSIS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) \xe2\x80\x93 Approval of\n Ingredients and Sources of Radiation Used in the Production of Meat\n and Poultry Products.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n In May 1997, FSIS opened the Technical Service Center (TSC), in\n Omaha, Nebraska, to provide technical assistance and guidance to FSIS\n meat, poultry, and egg products inspection employees, industry\n representatives, plant owners and operators, other government agencies,\n and others on the implementation and enforcement of regulations and\n policies for both domestic and imported products. The technical\n assistance and guidance provided daily by the TSC comes from a team of\n FSIS experts comprised of veterinarians, microbiologists, food\n technologists, statisticians, management analysts, and others.\n\n In addition, FSIS continuously conducts HACCP demonstration projects to\n show how HACCP systems are supposed to work for various products\n and product categories under actual operating conditions in small and very\n small plants. These demonstration projects began during the 2-year\n period following the issuance of the final rule, at a number of sites around\n the country. The HACCP demonstration projects provided the opportunity\n to answer a number of industry questions and reduced the costs incurred\n by small establishments in developing HACCP systems.\n\n FSIS has made available guidance materials to assist plants in conducting\n their hazard analyses and developing HACCP plans. They include a\n Guidebook for the Preparation of HACCP Plans, which was designed to\n provide the small establishments with a step-by-step approach for\n developing a HACCP plan; it included examples and sample forms for\n each step.\n\n The USDA/FDA \xe2\x80\x9cFoodborne Illness Education Information Center,\xe2\x80\x9d was\n developed and maintains the HACCP Training Programs and Resources\n Database, which provides up-to-date listings of HACCP training programs,\n resources, and consultants offering training programs or resources. The\n database can be accessed through the Internet at\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 88\n\x0c http://www.nalusda.gov/fnic/foodborne/haccp/index.shtml.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on the information contained in the response, we cannot reach\n management decision. The intent of this recommendation is to establish a\n proactive technical assistance program when HACCP plans are found to\n be technically deficient, rather than a passive program of making guidance\n documents available to industry. To reach management decision, FSIS\n needs to establish a technical assistance program, in conjunction with\n HACCP reviews.\n\n ConAgra did not always reexamine an\n FINDING NO. 14 acceptable number of beef carcasses when\n zero tolerance violations (animal feces on\n FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 POLICY ON REINSPECTING product) were noted. FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 written policy\n CARCASSES FOR FECAL does not state in a clear and obvious place\n CONTAMINATION IS TOO how far back plant production should be held\n OBSCURE TO OFFER and reinspected from the point the defect is\n REASONABLE GUIDANCE recorded. FSIS technicians have advised that\n all carcasses back to the last verification\n should be reinspected. Because this\n procedure is not written into generally available FSIS policy, ConAgra did\n not hold and reinspect 175 beef carcasses on July 10, 2002, after fecal\n contamination was observed on beef product. The carcasses, which may\n have been contaminated, were released for production.\n\n FSIS has no clear specific written guidance on what actions are to be\n taken when there is a deviation from the zero tolerance\xe2\x80\x99s critical limit. We\n did find an obscure reference in the model generic Beef68 Slaughter\n HACCP plan which shows that, \xe2\x80\x9cAll affected carcasses back to the last\n acceptable check will be visually inspected and reworked if visible fecal\n contamination is observed.\xe2\x80\x9d The model generic Pork69 Slaughter HACCP\n plan contains a similar provision. Also, the TSC has advised both industry\n and FSIS inspection personnel that when an establishment\xe2\x80\x99s critical\n control point monitoring check shows the critical limit for the control point\n was exceeded, the plant should retain product back to the last acceptable\n monitoring/verification check for product disposition.\n\n\n\n\n68\n USDA FSIS Generic HACCP Model for Beef Slaughter, dated September 1999, page 30.\n69\n USDA FSIS Generic HACCP Model for Pork Slaughter, dated September 1999, page 34.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 89\n\x0c When there was a deviation from the zero tolerance\xe2\x80\x99s critical limit,\n ConAgra did not always retain carcasses back to the last acceptable\n monitoring or verification check. According to the plant\xe2\x80\x99s SOP, SOP\n 1804A and 1804, \xe2\x80\x9ccarcasses processed since the last passed check shall\n be retained for any necessary zero tolerance reconditioning and\n reinspected by quality assurance.\xe2\x80\x9d However, the two procedures go on to\n state, \xe2\x80\x9ccarcasses processed since last passed check shall be defined as\n those carcasses of the present hour of production at the final trim rail\n area\xe2\x80\x9d [emphasis added]. In other words, the group of carcasses retained\n by the establishment go back 1 hour of production, but may not always\n include carcasses back to the last acceptable monitoring or verification\n check, if that check occurred more than 1 hour before the deviation. For\n example, when FSIS found fecal contamination during an HACCP check\n at 9:15 a.m. on July 10, 2002, ConAgra held 272 carcasses produced\n during the period of 8:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. In this instance, there were\n 175 carcasses unaccounted for between the plant\xe2\x80\x99s last acceptable zero\n tolerance verification check at 7:48 a.m. and the production lot of\n carcasses they actually retained.\n\n ConAgra officials stated that their rationale for retaining carcasses back\n only 1 hour was based on the premise that the checks were made\n randomly during a 1-hour production lot (this determines if that specific\n production lot was subject to contamination). The officials believed that\n the random check did not determine that the previous hour\xe2\x80\x99s production lot\n was subject to contamination if the random check conducted during the\n previous hour was acceptable. The IIC at ConAgra had the same\n understanding as the company official as to what would be the appropriate\n group of carcasses to be retained for production disposition.\n\n FSIS needs to clarify the actions necessary when there is a deviation from\n the zero tolerance critical limit. A TSC official indicated that ConAgra\xe2\x80\x99s\n carcass reinspection process may have been adequate if (1) the company\n had properly documented the scientific basis of their approach and (2) the\n company had sufficient control of fecal contamination in the plant. In the\n TSC official\xe2\x80\x99s opinion, the fact that ConAgra had numerous instances of\n fecal contamination being discovered in all areas of the plant (areas of the\n plant outside of the slaughter operation) indicated that the plant\xe2\x80\x99s carcass\n reinspection process was inadequate.\n\n Issue clear written policy on how\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 30 contaminated carcasses are to be handled\n when a zero tolerance violation occurs,\n including the circumstances under which it is\n appropriate to hold and reinspect all carcasses produced since the last\n acceptable check.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 90\n\x0c FSIS Response\n\n FSIS Directive 6420.1, \xe2\x80\x9cLivestock Post-Mortem Inspection Activities-\n Enforcing the Zero Tolerances for Fecal Material, Ingesta, and Milk,\xe2\x80\x9d\n directs FSIS inspection program personnel on how to enforce the zero\n tolerance standards. The instructions provided in this directive will ensure\n that the circumstances for holding and reinspecting all carcasses are\n clearly defined and in accordance with acceptable and established\n statistical methodology. FSIS will update this policy with more explicit\n instructions for handling and re-inspecting contaminated carcasses by\n December 2003.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on the information provided in the response, we cannot reach\n management decision. To reach management decision, FSIS needs to\n provide details as to how contaminated carcasses will be handled.\n\n FSIS has no written procedures that require\n FINDING NO. 15 FSIS personnel to monitor the disposition of\n ground beef or beef trim that has tested\n FSIS CANNOT PROVIDE positive for the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen.\n ASSURANCE THAT ALL Contaminated beef products were returned to\n CONTAMINATED PRODUCT IS ConAgra periodically and resold to be used in\n PROPERLY DISPOSED OF pet foods or canned or frozen precooked\n meals, but FSIS inspectors did not verify that\n the buyers of the contaminated beef were in\n business to make pet food or precooked meals. Nor is FSIS always\n notified when beef products are found to be contaminated. FSIS officials\n believe that it is not necessary or practical for the agency to monitor the\n final disposition of all ground beef or beef trim that has tested E. coli\n O157:H7 positive. We believe that FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 mission obligates it to implement\n controls to protect the public health and that failing to monitor the final\n disposition of raw ground beef contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 is\n inconsistent with this mission. Although we found no instances in which\n contaminated raw ground beef was not disposed of properly, the absence\n of FSIS procedures to ensure this disposition presents a weakness in the\n food safety inspection system.\n\n Before the recall, ConAgra beef trim that tested positive for the E. coli\n O157:H7 pathogen, as a result of customer testing, was often returned to\n the plant for reprocessing. ConAgra officials said that they would notify\n FSIS in-plant inspection personnel when product was returned. ConAgra\n personnel would then transfer the trim from its original bins into smaller\n boxes. They said the small-boxed trim would then be labeled \xe2\x80\x9cfor cooking\n only\xe2\x80\x9d and would be resold. FSIS inspectors would sometimes observe the\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 91\n\x0c repackaging but would make no effort to verify the actual disposition of the\n product and ensure it was not resold to an outlet that handled only raw\n ground beef.\n\n With the assistance of FSIS compliance personnel, we reviewed the sales\n of this boxed trim for the period June 2001 through August 2002. We did\n not find any instances where the distributors sold the boxed trim to any\n operations that intended to use the trim for raw ground beef. However,\n our reviews did disclose instances where recalled beef trim was not\n always returned to the plant. For example, about 118,000 pounds of trim\n that tested positive during the recall period was reportedly rendered and\n not returned to the plant. There is no requirement that customers of meat\n slaughter plants or processors notify FSIS when their tests of raw beef\n products disclose the presence of E. coli O157:H7.\n\n In order to control and monitor the final disposition of adulterated products,\n FSIS would have to be notified of the location of these products, and it\n would have to seal shipments of the adulterated product to prevent any\n amount from being diverted. On three occasions, FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 E. coli O157:H7\n testing indicated positive results in Galligan ground beef. Galligan\n personnel informed us that the finely ground beef associated with the first\n positive was destroyed and that the finely ground beef from the other two\n positives were returned to ConAgra. FSIS policy did not require that the\n finely ground beef be transported from Galligan to ConAgra under FSIS\n seal. However, in this case, a seal was used. FSIS compliance personnel\n stated that the truck transporting the finely ground beef to ConAgra was\n also carrying intact ConAgra course ground beef chubs on which FSIS\n intended to perform traceback E. coli O157:H7 testing. Consequently, the\n compliance personnel sealed the entire truckload of meat products.\n Compliance personnel informed us that if the chubs had not been on the\n truck, the cargo would not have been sealed. We believe all trim that is\n destined for grinding and ground beef that tests positive for E. coli\n O157:H7 should be sealed or monitored in some manner.\n\n FSIS National Office officials stated that it is unnecessary and impractical\n for FSIS to monitor the disposition of all ground beef and beef trim that\n tests positive for the E. coli pathogen. These officials said that it is the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to ensure that E. coli O157:H7 positive\n product is destroyed or diverted to acceptable uses such as cooking or\n rendering. They also said that monitoring all E. coli O157:H7 positive trim\n and ground beef would involve complex issues (although they did not\n elaborate on what these issues were), and would consume considerable\n FSIS resources. Consequently, there is no requirement that FSIS be\n informed of these positive test results.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 92\n\x0c We realize that FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 resources are limited; however, once FSIS is aware\n microbiological testing has indicated there is E. coli O157:H7 in raw trim or\n ground beef, it seems prudent for FSIS to intensify its surveillance of\n contaminated product known to contain a potentially deadly pathogen.\n Although our review did not show that any trim or ground beef\n contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 was used in an unacceptable manner,\n there is no assurance that it was all disposed of properly.\n\n We concluded that FSIS needs to reevaluate its operations to consider the\n risks to the public by its decision not to monitor the disposition of product\n contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Establishments may be financially\n liable for any contaminated product reaching the consumer, but FSIS has\n a larger responsibility to protect the public\xe2\x80\x99s health and safety. It should\n be FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 responsibility to ensure that products contaminated with E. coli\n O157:H7 are always used in an acceptable manner or destroyed.\n\n Reevaluate FSIS operations in terms of the\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 31 risks posed to the public by the agency\n decision not to monitor the disposition of\n product contaminated with E. coli O157:H7\n and consider the need to issue regulations that require FSIS to take\n control of such product and verify that it has been properly processed or\n destroyed.\n\n FSIS Response\n\n On April 18, 2003, FSIS issued FSIS Notice 11-03 (Enclosure No. 8),\n \xe2\x80\x9cUpdate to FSIS Directive 10,010.1, Microbiological Testing Program For\n Escherichia Coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d The Notice provides\n updated instructions to inspection program personnel on some of the\n issues covered by FSIS Directive 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing\n Program For Escherichia Coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n FSIS will provide clear directions on the disposition of product\n contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 in the updated FSIS Directive,\n 10,010.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMicrobiological Testing Program For Escherichia coli O157:H7\n in Raw Ground Beef.\xe2\x80\x9d The revised Directive will be issued by\n October 2003.\n\n The FSIS Notice 11-03, updates and implements procedures that\n immediately went into effect and were given to inspection program\n personnel that instructed them to collect raw ground beef samples\n whenever they received an FSIS Form 10,210-3 for microbiological\n sampling project MT03. Samples are to be collected regardless of\n whether the establishment had met criteria set forth in FSIS Directive\n 10,010.1, VI.B. All raw ground beef, hamburger, ground veal, veal or beef\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 93\n\x0c patties, or other products meeting the standard of identity in 9 CFR\n 319.15, are subject to verification sampling by FSIS. Thus, plants are no\n longer exempted from sampling based on conducting their own testing.\n\n Under 9 CFR 500.3 FSIS has authority to take enforcement action against\n any establishment that has been found to have produced and shipped\n adulterated product. When effectiveness checks disclose that proper\n notification of the consignee/customers has not been given, FSIS has the\n authority to detain and, if necessary, subsequently seize products that\n have been determined to be adulterated. FSIS has prior precedent in\n applying its enforcement authority.\n\n FSIS is working closely with industry and is providing guidance on the\n proper and appropriate actions that should be taken during recalls. On\n December 12, 2002, FSIS held a public meeting to discuss improving the\n recall process. The Agency is considering ideas presented at the public\n meeting for increasing industry\xe2\x80\x99s involvement in managing recalls.\n\n As part of the recall process improvement effort, FSIS will examine and\n include as appropriate, provisions to establish criteria to assess the overall\n effectiveness of a recall, to reconcile planned effectiveness checks to\n those checks actually performed, to identify the corrective actions to be\n taken when deficiencies are noted. This information will be assembled\n and formalized in a directive. The management controls, responsibilities,\n and oversight roles for this process will be clearly delineated in a directive.\n\n The workgroup will provide a report outlining recommendations by\n October 2003. The draft guidelines entitled, \xe2\x80\x9cOffice of Field Operations\n District Office Recall Responsibilities\xe2\x80\x9d which was issued to District Offices\n in March 2003 will be finalized by March 2004. The final FSIS\n recommendations will be implemented by July 2004.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on the information provided in the response, we cannot reach\n management decision. To reach management decision, FSIS needs to\n provide information as to the processes and procedures to be put in place\n to improve the recall process, including inspector responsibilities to\n monitor the disposition of contaminated products.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 94\n\x0c GENERAL COMMENTS\n\n Laboratories, which are not accredited by USDA for microbiological testing, are\n conducting microbiological tests for HACCP purposes. USDA certifies\n laboratories for food chemistry testing, such as moisture, protein, fat, and salt,\n but it no longer certifies laboratories for microbiological testing. ConAgra uses\n Warren Analytical Laboratory for its testing, and laboratory officials maintained\n that they are qualified to perform microbiological testing by the laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s ISO\n 17025 accreditation. The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation is\n the accrediting body for ISO 17025 in the United States, and the ISO 17025\n accreditation is recognized as the highest international standard for food testing\n laboratories. Since there is no consistency of standards from laboratory to\n laboratory, we do not know what standards, if any, other laboratories follow for\n conducting microbiological tests for HACCP purposes.\n\n Further, laboratories may have inherent conflicts of interest when the processing\n plants, for which they do testing, own them. ConAgra owns Warren Analytical\n Laboratory, but laboratory officials maintain that firewalls (a letter instructing that\n communications were to be limited between plant and laboratory personnel) were\n established to prevent plants they do testing for from influencing test results.\n\n However, the European Union questioned Warren Analytical Laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s ability\n to function independently. The European Union insisted USDA prohibit Warren\n Analytical Laboratory from running additional residue tests as part of the trade\n agreement with the United States on the grounds the laboratory has a conflict of\n interest with ConAgra. USDA was not concerned with Warren Analytical\n Laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s independence, as it believed it could maintain a significant amount\n of control over the sampling, and falsification of test results would destroy a\n laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s reputation. However, USDA did not select Warren Analytical\n Laboratory to conduct testing under the trade agreement because the laboratory\n did not meet projected deadlines to submit method validation information.\n\n FSIS needs to address the need for uniformity in testing completed for HACCP\n purposes, as well as the conflicts of interest between laboratories and the\n processing plants that own them.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 95\n\x0cEXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 LOCATIONS VISITED\n\nFSIS National Office \xe2\x80\x93 Washington, D.C.\n\nFSIS District Number 20 \xe2\x80\x93 Minneapolis, Minnesota\n\nFSIS District Number 15 \xe2\x80\x93 Boulder, Colorado\n\nARS Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center \xe2\x80\x93 Clay Center, Nebraska\n\nFSIS Western Laboratory \xe2\x80\x93 Alameda, California\n\nMontana Quality Foods & Processing, Inc. \xe2\x80\x93 Miles City, Montana\n\nGalligan Wholesale Meat Company \xe2\x80\x93 Denver, Colorado\n\nConAgra Beef Company \xe2\x80\x93 Greeley, Colorado\n\nWarren Analytical Laboratory \xe2\x80\x93 Greeley, Colorado\n\nConAgra Customer (Grinder for Nationwide Fast Food Restaurant)\n\nTwo Nationwide Fast Food Restaurant Corporations\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 96\n\x0cEXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 PROCEDURES, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS\nCHANGED AFTER THE CONAGRA RECALL\n\n Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\n Pathogen Testing\nFederal Register Raw ground beef not Agency officials recalled\n9 CFR, Chapter III intended for ready-to-eat beef trim products as part\n products was considered of the ConAgra recall.\nFederal Register adulterated if it was Federal Register Notice:\nNotice: contaminated with E. coli October 7, 2002, Docket\nJanuary 19, 1999, O157:H7. This policy No. 00-022N restated the\nDocket No. 97-068N was expanded in 1999 to January 1999 policy\n include beef trim and determination that beef trim\nFederal Register similar products. and similar products that\nNotice: March 15, 1999, were not destined for\nOctober 7, 2002, Constituent Update, FSIS cooking, i.e., would be used\nDocket No. 00-022N explained the Agency in raw product, are\n would not act on its considered adulterated if\n January 19, 1999, policy contaminated with E. coli\n statement until it had an O157:H7.\n opportunity to consider\n the comments received.\n We could not identify any\n subsequent instructions\n to the field implementing\n the policy that beef\n trimmings could be\n adulterated.\nFSIS Directive The testing program was A testing program\n10,010.1, limited to raw ground for beef trimmings is\nMicrobiological beef. under development.\nTesting Program for\nEscherichia coli Establishments meeting No establishments\nO157:H7 in Raw certain criteria were producing raw\nGround exempt from the testing ground beef will be\n program. exempt from the\n sampling and testing\n program.\n\n If a sample of ground FSIS will exercise\n beef from an discretion in\n establishment tested determining the\n positive for E. coli number of follow-up\n O157:H7, FSIS continued test samples to take,\n to collect samples until based on the\n the Agency obtained suspected cause of\n 15 consecutive samples the contamination\n with negative test results. and the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n corrective action.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 97\n\x0c Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\n Sampled lot was defined FSIS will recognize\n as all raw ground beef the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n products produced defined lot size,\n between performance of provided the\n complete cleaning and establishment has a\n sanitization procedures. scientific or other\n supportable basis\n for defining the\n sampled lot.\n\n No provisions were A project code and sample The new provisions\n included in the Directive collection and processing have not been\n for traceback samples. procedures for traceback codified in the\n samples have been Directive, as it has\n developed. not been revised\n yet.\n District offices were No Change.\n instructed to inform the\n affected plant or retail\n outlet when positive\n E. coli O157:H7 test\n results were confirmed.\n Traceback\nFSIS Notice 47-02, No provisions in prior Procedures in notice\ndated procedures to cover the provide for in-plant\nNovember 20, 2002 affected area. personnel to identify the\n firms supplying the raw\n materials when\n presumptive positive test\n results are reported. Upon\n notification that there was a\n confirmed positive test\n result, the district office now\n notifies suppliers that\n product from their\n establishment was used in\n raw ground beef that tested\n positive for E. coli\n O157:H7. In addition, the\n RMD follows a similar\n procedure to notify\n suppliers.\n HACCP\n9 CFR 417 HACCP, Establishments Based on new scientific\nFederal Register producing raw beef evidence, all\nVol. 67, No. 194, products were required to establishments producing\ndated reassess their HACCP raw beef products that have\nOctober 7, 2002 plans at least annually. not reassessed their\n Based on scientific HACCP plans in light of the\n evidence at the time the new information must do so\n regulation was issued, it and consider whether\n was considered E. coli O157:H7 is a hazard\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 98\n\x0c Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\n acceptable for plants to reasonably likely to occur.\n consider E. coli O157:H7\n as a hazard not likely to\n occur.\nFSIS Notice 44-02, Instructions were issued to\ndated verify the required\nNovember 4, 2002, reassessment was\nInstructions for performed according to a\nVerifying E. coli specified timeline.\nO157:H7\nReassessment\n The automated\n inspection system\n periodically generates\n task assignments to\n inspectors to perform\n record review for HACCP\n verification.\n\nFSIS Notice 29-02, Notice issued to clarify the\ndated difference between a\nAugust 9, 2002, deviation from a critical limit\nHACCP Verification and the conditions where\nProcedures and the such a deviation results in\n30-day noncompliance. Notice\nReassessment provides guidance on when\nLetter an NR should be written\n when inspectors are\n performing the 01 and 02\n assigned tasks.\n\nFSIS Directive Duties and Procedures have been\n5000.1 Revision 1, responsibilities of FSIS clarified with respect to the\ndated May 21, 2003 personnel with respect to duties of Consumer Safety\n HACCP monitoring, Investigators (CSI) and\n verification, and Consumer Safety Officers\n reassessment were (CSO).\n generally not specified.\n Items clarified by the\n procedures related to the\n verification or\n reassessment of the\n following for CSIs:\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HACCP procedure\n verification\n methodology;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 hazard analysis by the\n establishment;\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 99\n\x0c Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 monitoring;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 verification of the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s plan\n verification\n requirement;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 recordkeeping\n requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 corrective actions\n taken by establishment\n personnel in response\n to a deviation from a\n critical limit;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HACCP plan\n reassessment\n requirement.\n\n Items related to HACCP\n pertaining to the duties and\n responsibilities of CSOs\n were clarified for:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HACCP assessment;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 hazard analysis\n review;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 assessing the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n HACCP monitoring\n procedures;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 assessment of\n whether the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s on-\n going verification\n activities comply with\n regulatory\n requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 assessment of the\n establishment\xe2\x80\x99s\n recordkeeping\n activities;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 corrective actions\n assessment; and\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 100\n\x0c Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reassessment\n activities for the\n hazard analysis or the\n HACCP plan.\n\n Recall Activities\nFSIS Directive Public notification of The RMD now notifies The new provisions\n8080.1, Rev. 3, recalls was limited to affected State public health have not been\nRecall of Meat and press releases with no departments by e-mail or codified in the\nPoultry Products provision for directly telephone contact when Directive, as it has\n notifying State public recalls are initiated. not been revised as\n health departments. yet.\n\n There were no provisions The RMD now notifies The new provisions\n for notifying suppliers affected suppliers by e-mail have not been\n when a recall was made or telephone contact when codified in the\n at a grinding facility that a recall is initiated at a Directive, as it has\n used the supplier\xe2\x80\x99s grinding facility that used not been revised as\n product in the affected the supplier\xe2\x80\x99s product in the yet.\n grind. recalled product.\nFSIS Directive These are the basic New procedure was issued\n7355.1, Use of procedures used by FSIS to provide improved\nSample Seals for for collecting, securing, security over samples and\nProgram Samples and shipping ensure the integrity of\nand Other microbiological and other samples on\n(Replaced) product samples. December 3, 2002.\n\nFSIS Directive\n7355.1 Revision 2,\nUse of Sample\nSeals for Laboratory\nSamples and Other\nApplications\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 101\n\x0c Overall Program Areas\n Procedure Before the Changes Under\nRegulation/ Directive Recall Changes to the Procedures Consideration\nNo Specific Food Safety The Secretary directed The new procedure\nRegulation or Investigations. FSIS to conduct an has not been\nDirective unprecedented codified.\n investigation of food safety\n issues at the ConAgra\n plant. A team of experts\n headed by the Deputy\n Administrator, Field\n Operations, conducted the\n investigation.\n\n Baseline study of the FSIS is considering\n prevalence of E. coli conducting a\n O157:H7 in raw beef scientifically valid\n products. study (testing\n program) to\n determine the\n prevalence of the\n pathogen in raw\n beef products and\n identifying risk\n factors that increase\n the chance of the\n pathogen being\n present in products.\n Based on the results\n of this study, the\n microbiological\n testing program for\n E. coli O157:H7\n could be changed to\n target sampling to\n high-risk\n areas/plants.\n9 CFR 390.9, Rule Due to considerations A Memorandum of\nMaking, Effective related to trade secrets, Understanding has been\nJuly 31, 2002 product distribution lists developed. Any State\n for recalled products public health organization\n were not shared with willing to sign the\n State public health Memorandum of\n officials. Understanding with FSIS\n will be provided with\n product distribution lists for\n Class I and II recalls in their\n area that occur subsequent\n to signing the agreement.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 102\n\x0cEXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 CONAGRA RECALL TIMELINE\n\n Sample or\n Other Establishment Action\nAction Date\nJanuary 2002\n Random (MT03) sample was reported positive for E. coli\n O157:H7 on January 28 from random monitoring sample. The\n contaminated product was destroyed. FSIS scheduled 15\n Montana Quality\n Jan 23 verification samples. FSIS issued 2 NRs and issued a voluntary\n Foods\n recall press release announcing that the establishment was\n recalling about 270 pounds of fresh ground beef. Establishment\n held an additional 100 pounds.\nFebruary 2002\n A Montana Senator and Congressman faxed a letter to the\n Minneapolis FSIS District Office regarding the recall. The letter\n Montana Quality\n Feb 11 included a note from Montana Quality Foods demanding that\n Foods\n USDA \xe2\x80\x9cpublicly clear/exonerate the name of my firm and its\n exemplary reputation.\xe2\x80\x9d\n Montana Quality Verification sample (MT04) 1 of 15 was reported negative on\n Feb 12\n Foods February 14.\n Montana Quality Verification sample 2 of 15 was reported negative on February 17.\n Feb 15\n Foods\n Verification sample 3 of 15 was reported positive on February 24.\n Montana Quality\n Feb 19 No product from the lot was shipped. The contaminated product\n Foods\n was destroyed.\n Verification sample 1 of 15 following the positive sample was\n Montana Quality\n Feb 20 reported positive on February 25. No product from this lot was\n Foods\n shipped. The contaminated product was destroyed.\n Verification sample 1 of 15 following the positive sample was\n Montana Quality\n Feb 21 reported positive on February 26. No product from this lot was\n Foods\n shipped. The contaminated product was destroyed.\n Montana Quality Verification sample 1 of 15 following the positive sample was\n Feb 22\n Foods reported negative on February 24.\n Montana Quality FSIS issued 6 NRs for the reported positive sample results.\n Feb 25\n Foods\n NRs were amended by FSIS. FSIS issued an NOIE to notify the\n company of intent to withhold the marks of inspection and suspend\n the assignment of inspectors for its raw ground process. This was\n Montana Quality\n Feb 26 based on an inadequate HACCP system for its raw ground\n Foods\n process and three positive E. coli O157:H7 samples.\n\n Verification sample 2 of 15 was reported negative on February 28.\n Montana Quality Verification sample 3 of 15 was reported negative on March 2.\n Feb 28\n Foods\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 103\n\x0cMarch 2002\n Responded to FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 NOIE. Response was considered inadequate\n because it (1) did not address how the CCP would be under\n Mar 1 Montana Quality\n control after corrective action was taken, (2) did not identify E. coli\n Foods\n as a hazard likely to occur, and (3) did not indicate that the facility\n would only use sampled or intervention-certified product.\n Montana Quality FSIS issued Notice of Suspension for the establishment\xe2\x80\x98s Raw\n Mar 5\n Foods Ground Process.\n Submitted a reassessed Raw Ground HACCP process to FSIS for\n Montana Quality review. This included a CCP for sampled or intervention-certified\n Foods incoming product for coarse-ground product, and sampling and lab\n Mar 8\n analysis of incoming coarse-ground product for E. coli O157:H7.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Meat Co. Random sample was reported negative on March 10.\n FSIS issued a Notice of Suspension Held in Abeyance.\n Establishment agreed to reassess its HACCP plan for its own\n Montana Quality\n Mar 12 trimmings used in the process, and to keep its own trimmings out\n Foods\n of the process until the reassessment was complete. FSIS gave\n the company 45 days to complete this reassessment.\n Montana Quality Verification samples 4 and 5 of 15 were reported negative on\n Mar 14\n Foods March 16.\n Montana Quality Verification samples 6 and 7 of 15 were reported negative on\n Mar 15\n Foods March 17.\n Montana Quality Verification samples 8 and 9 of 15 were reported negative on\n Mar 18\n Foods March 20.\n Montana Quality Verification samples 10, 11, and 12 of 15 were reported negative\n Foods on March 21.\n Mar 19\n ConAgra Random sample was reported negative on March 23.\n Montana Quality Verification samples 13 and 14 of 15 were reported negative on\n Mar 21\n Foods March 23.\n Montana Quality\n Mar 22 Verification sample 15 of 15 was reported negative on March 24.\n Foods\nApril 2002\n 112 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 0 confirmed positive for\n Apr 2-5 ConAgra 1\n E. coli O157:H7.\n 107 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 1 confirmed positive for\n Apr 8-12 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n 105 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 4 confirmed positive for\n Apr 15-19 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Montana Quality\n Apr 16 Random sample was reported negative on April 18.\n Foods\n Requested an extension to the 45-day timeline for the\n Apr 18 Montana Quality reassessment of its trimmings in its raw ground process. This was\n Foods granted because the establishment was not using its own\n trimmings.\n 152 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 0 confirmed positive for\n Apr 22-27 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n\n\n1\n Samples of beef trim that were taken at ConAgra were not tested by FSIS. Company records showed\nthat FSIS personnel were informed of the positive beef trim test results for the product that was returned\nto ConAgra.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 104\n\x0c 131 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 2 confirmed positive for\nApr 29-May 3 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\nMay 2002\n 105 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 0 confirmed positive for\n May 6-10 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Random sample was reported positive May 14. Establishment\n Galligan Wholesale\n May 9 held product pending sample results. Establishment officials\n Meat Co.\n asserted they later destroyed the contaminated product.\n 110 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 1 confirmed positive for\n May 13-17 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Sample taken May 9 was confirmed positive. No recall was\n Galligan Wholesale necessary because the company held the entire product. FSIS\n May 14 scheduled 15 verification samples for testing at the\n Meat Co.\n 2\n establishment.\n Galligan Wholesale FSIS issued an NR for positive result reported on May 14 and\n May 20\n Meat Co. directed the establishment to reassess its HACCP plan.\n 124 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 6 confirmed positive for\n May 20-24 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Montana Quality Random sample was reported negative on May 25.\n Foods\n May 23 Galligan Wholesale Establishment responded to its NR. HACCP plan was\n Meat Co. reassessed. Establishment minimized suppliers of raw product to\n 1 or 2 per lot.\n Galligan Wholesale\n May 28 Verification sample was reported negative on May 30.\n Meat Co.\n 92 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 5 confirmed positive for\nMay 28-Jun 1 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Date of production of original ConAgra ground beef implicated in\n May 31 ConAgra\n June 30 recall.\nJune 2002\n 139 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 3 confirmed positive for\n Jun 3-7 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample reported potential positive on June 6. Sample\n Jun 4\n Meat Co. reported negative June 8.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported potential positive on June 7, but\n Jun 5\n Meat Co. reported negative June 9.\n Galligan Wholesale Laboratory reported sample collected June 10 was discarded\n Jun 10\n Meat Co. because the sample was too warm.\n 156 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 13 confirmed positive for\n Jun 10-15 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Random sample was reported negative on June 15.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 11\n Meat Co. Verification sample was reported as potential positive on June 13\n and was reported negative on June 15.\n Verification sample was reported positive June 17. Product\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 12 sampled was supplied solely by ConAgra, according to\n Meat Co.\n establishment records. Sampled product was held at the plant.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample reported negative on June 15. ConAgra did\n Jun 13\n Meat Co. not supply product sampled.\n\n\n\n2\n The verification sample sequence for Galligan could not be definitely determined due to the absence of\ndocumentation.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 105\n\x0c Verification sample was reported positive on June 19. According\n to FSIS, allegedly, only product purchased from ConAgra was\n Galligan Wholesale sampled (produced by ConAgra on May 31); however, other\n Jun 14\n Meat Co. sources may have been incorporated into the ground beef.\n Establishment records showed that only ConAgra-supplied product\n was sampled. Sampled product was held at the plant.\n Verification sample taken on June 12 reported positive. This was\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 17 product obtained solely from ConAgra. FSIS sent two compliance\n Meat Co.\n officers to the establishment.\n 152 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 3 confirmed positive for\n Jun 17-22 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n ConAgra FSIS district manager contacted the FSIS TSC for permission to\n do traceback sample on product that was produced by ConAgra\n on May 31. TSC advised that a traceback sample would not be\n proper.\n Jun 18\n Galligan Wholesale FSIS issued an NR for positive results from June 12 sample. IIC\n Meat Co. retained two boxes of chubs\xe2\x80\x93course ground beef purchased from\n ConAgra.\n NR issued for positive result from June 14 sample. Establishment\n continued to allege that only ConAgra-supplied product had been\n Galligan Wholesale\n used. An FSIS compliance team was dispatched to initiate an\n Meat Co.\n investigation. Compliance personnel from the district office visited\n the establishment and determined that the positive sample was\n Jun 19 from a single source: ConAgra. Galligan pledged daily E. coli\n testing and set July 12 as the date for completing HACCP\n reassessment.\n ConAgra\n Safeway launched a buy-1-get-1-free sale on ground beef for 6\n days, until June 24.\n Of 160 pounds of course ground beef located at the plant, FSIS\n detained 2 10-pound chubs, and 140 pounds were returned to\n ConAgra and held by the company. District office compliance\n personnel contacted FSIS Headquarters to obtain permission to\n take a traceback sample. Compliance personnel obtained\n Jun 20 Galligan Wholesale\n additional documentation, photographed the remaining source\n Meat Co.\n product, and verified that the source of the product contamination\n was from course ground beef from ConAgra with a pack date of\n May 31. Advised FSIS Headquarters officials of their findings and\n requested permission from FSIS OPHS to take a traceback\n sample.\n Verification sample was reported negative on June 23. The district\n office Assistant District Manager for Enforcement contacted an\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 21 FSIS Headquarters compliance specialist concerning traceback\n Meat Co.\n authority. District office personnel provided background\n information to the compliance specialist.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 106\n\x0c Boulder District Office personnel received authority from FSIS\n Headquarters to take traceback samples. Traceback samples\n were collected by a district office compliance officer and taken\n from the unopened product detained on June 20 (two 10-pound\n Jun 24 Galligan Wholesale chubs that Galligan purchased from ConAgra with a May 31\n Meat Co. production date). Samples were sent to the FSIS Western\n Laboratory. FSIS scheduled 15 verification samples. Samples\n reported positive on June 29.\n\n Verification sample was reported negative June 26.\n 155 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 9 confirmed positive for\n Jun 24-29 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 25 Verification sample was reported negative on June 27.\n Meat Co.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jun 26 Verification sample was reported negative on June 28.\n Meat Co.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on June 29.\n Meat Co.\n Jun 27\n ConAgra FSIS Western Laboratory informed ConAgra of potential positive\n test from the traceback sample taken at Galligan on June 24.\n Galligan Wholesale Traceback samples taken June 24 at Galligan were confirmed\n Meat Co. positive for E. coli O157:H7. Positive results were transmitted\n about 7:10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time. FSIS initiated 15\n verification samples from ground beef produced by ConAgra.\n\n Jun 29 ConAgra Boulder District Office received notification at 8:30 a.m. that the\n traceback samples collected on June 24 were positive. A recall\n worksheet was faxed to ConAgra corporate officials in Greeley\n with instructions to start gathering distribution data for product\n produced on May 31, 2002. Recall committee meeting was\n scheduled for June 30. FSIS requested a voluntary recall.\n Recall Committee met. ConAgra agreed to a voluntary recall of\n ground beef products. Nationwide recall release was issued by\n Jun 30 ConAgra\n FSIS for about 354,000 pound of fresh and frozen ground beef\n products produced on May 31.\nJuly 2002\n Western Laboratory faxed a copy of the positive E. coli O157:H7\n results to the Boulder District Office. FSIS compliance officer and\n Galligan Wholesale supervisory compliance officer met with ConAgra. Safeway Stores\n Jul 1\n Meat Co. in Colorado issued a recall for ground beef.\n\n Verification sample was reported negative on July 3.\n 268 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 3 confirmed positive tests\n Jul 1-6 ConAgra\n for E. coli O157:H7.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on July 4.\n Meat Co.\n The June 30 ConAgra recall triggered the dispatch of FSIS\n Jul 2 ConAgra compliance officers to conduct recall effectiveness checks. FSIS\n dispatched a CSO to work with in-plant inspection personnel to\n review the company\xe2\x80\x99s reassessment of its HACCP plan.\n\n Safeway announced it sold some of the recalled ground beef.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Jul 5 Verification sample was reported negative on July 7.\n Meat Co.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 107\n\x0c Galligan Wholesale\n Jul 8 Verification sample was reported negative on July 10.\n Meat Co.\n 269 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 17 confirmed positive for\n Jul 8-13 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Colorado State health officials reported an outbreak of 12 cases of\n E. coli O157:H7 in 9 counties and informed the public to return\n product from Safeway stores that was sold from June 7 to June\n 18. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment\n Jul 10 notified the CDC of a cluster of 18 culture-cured confirmed cases\n of E. coli O157:H7 infections possibly related to recalled ground\n beef.\n\n ConAgra FSIS determined the need for a full food safety investigation and a\n review team was dispatched to the ConAgra plant.\n Verification sample discarded on July 13 due to inconsistency with\n ConAgra the chain of custody requirements.\n\n Responded to two NRs. Galligan will do daily E. coli O157:H7\n Jul 11\n Galligan Wholesale testing in beef trimmings or ground beef. Establishment will\n Meat Co. change supplier from ConAgra. Establishment will complete\n HACCP plan reassessment by July 26. Retained product recalled\n to ConAgra and shipped under seal to ConAgra.\n Colorado State health officials announced there were an additional\n 5 cases associated with the current illness outbreak, bringing the\n total to 17 cases.\n\n Colorado Health Department reported that epidemiological case\n interviews found that 17 of 18 patients were reported purchasing\n Jul 12 ConAgra ground beef from the same grocery store chain. Colorado Health\n Department review of grocery store chain grinding logs indicated\n that ConAgra produced the ground beef repackaged by the store\n chain on May 31.\n\n Sample discarded on July 13 because of inconsistency with chain\n of custody requirements.\n Jul 13 ConAgra Verification sample 1 was reported negative on July 17.\n Verification sample was reported negative on July 19.\n\n CDC informed FSIS that pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)\n pattern of patients\xe2\x80\x99 isolates in Colorado matched pattern of\n ConAgra chub isolate.\n\n Food Safety Review Team, led by FSIS Deputy Administrator for\n Field Operations, arrived at ConAgra.\n\n FSIS released statement on change in its recall policy. FSIS will\n inform meat suppliers of positive E.coli O157:H7 test results for\n products sampled at plants to which the supplier shipped raw\n product for further processing.\n\n Jul 15 Galligan Wholesale Staff members from a Congressional representative and a senator\n Meat Co. contacted the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs\n requesting information regarding the July 14 Denver Post article\n concerning the ConAgra beef recall.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 108\n\x0c A senator sent a letter to USDA Secretary expressing concern\n about the USDA procedures and guidelines that do not require\n inspectors, upon a positive E-coli O157:H7 test, to contact\n suppliers so that they may initiate aggressive voluntary testing and\n recall procedures.\n\n PFGE patterns from Colorado patient isolates were found to be\n indistinguishable from the same isolates for ConAgra ground beef\n produced on May 31.\n\n At least 3 additional cases of E. coli O157:H7 in Arkansas and\n California are potentially associated epidemiologically with the\n consumption of ground beef produced by ConAgra on May 31.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 2 was reported negative on July 18.\n 305 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 11 confirmed positive for\n Jul 15-19 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Montana Quality FSIS closed out establishment\xe2\x80\x99s suspension with a Notice of\n Foods Warning because FSIS accepted the establishment\xe2\x80\x99s completed\n Jul 16 reassessment of its hazard analysis of its own trimmings.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 3 was reported negative on July 19.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on July 19.\n Meat Co.\n FSIS Food Safety Review Team briefed Recall Committee of\n Jul 17\n findings at ConAgra.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 4 was reported negative on July 19.\n Recall Committee recommended ConAgra expand recall beyond\n the 354,200 pounds (May 31 production) to include product\n produced between April 12 and July 11 (about 18 million pounds).\n Jul 18 ConAgra ConAgra accepted this determination. NOIE action was submitted\n to ConAgra, which had 72 hours to respond.\n\n Verification sample 5 was reported negative on July 20.\n Recall of 26 production days of product was announced by FSIS \xe2\x80\x93\n about 19 million pounds.\n Jul 19 ConAgra\n Verification sample 6 was reported negative on July 24.\n Jul 20 ConAgra Verification sample 7 was reported negative on July 26.\n Conference call with the CDC reported 21 confirmed cases of\n E. coli O157:H7 that share the Colorado/ConAgra PFGE pattern.\n Jul 22 ConAgra\n There were 17 cases in Colorado, with 1 each from 4 other states.\n Verification sample 8 was reported negative on July 24.\n 348 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 7 confirmed positive for\n Jul 22-26 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on July 25.\n Meat Co.\n Jul 23\n ConAgra Verification sample 9 was reported negative on July 26.\n Jul 24 ConAgra Verification sample 10 was reported negative on July 27.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on July 27.\n Jul 25\n Meat Co.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 11 was reported negative on July 28.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 109\n\x0c Galligan Wholesale Deadline for completing reassessment per response to 2 NRs.\n Meat Co.\n Verification sample was reported negative on July 28.\n\n ConAgra Letter from 2 senators to the Acting Inspector General requested\n Jul 26\n information concerning the effectiveness of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s recall system\n for meat and poultry products, and the effectiveness of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s\n response regarding the ConAgra recall.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 12 was reported negative on July 31.\n Jul 27 ConAgra Verification sample 13 was reported negative on July 31.\n 491 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 2 confirmed positive for\nJul 29-Aug 2 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Jul 29 ConAgra Verification sample 14 was reported negative on August 1.\n Jul 30 ConAgra Verification sample 15 was reported negative on August 1.\nAugust 2002\n Galligan Wholesale Random sample was reported negative on August 27.\n Meat Co.\n Aug 2\n ConAgra Sample was discarded on August 7 because of sample collection\n irregularities.\n 478 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 2 confirmed positive tests\n Aug 5-9 ConAgra\n for E. coli O157:H7.\n Aug 7 ConAgra Verification samples 16-22 were reported negative on August 9.\n Aug 8 ConAgra Verification sample 23 was reported negative on August 11.\n The CDC reported 46 confirmed cases in 16 states of E. coli\n Aug 9 ConAgra O157:H7 that shared the Colorado/ConAgra PFGE pattern.\n\n Verification sample 24 was reported negative on August 13.\n 357 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 5 confirmed positive for\n Aug 12-16 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Aug 12 ConAgra Verification sample 25 was reported negative on August 15.\n Aug 13 ConAgra Verification sample 26 was reported negative on August 15.\n Aug 14 ConAgra Verification sample 27 was reported negative on August 17.\n Aug 15 ConAgra Verification sample 28 was reported negative on August 17.\n Aug 16 ConAgra Verification sample 29 was reported negative on August 21.\n Aug 19 ConAgra Verification sample 30 was reported negative on August 21.\n 349 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 10 confirmed positive for\n Aug 19-23 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Verification sample was reported negative on August 23.\n Galligan Wholesale\n Aug 20 Meat Co.\n Verification sample 31 was reported negative on August 23.\n ConAgra Notice of Deferral is issued to ConAgra placing the NOIE in\n abeyance.\n Galligan Wholesale Verification sample was reported negative on August 26.\n Meat Co.\n Aug 21\n ConAgra Verification sample 32 was reported negative on August 23.\n Aug 22 ConAgra Verification sample 33 was reported negative on August 24.\n Aug 23 ConAgra Verification sample 34 was reported negative on August 28.\n Aug 26 ConAgra Verification sample 35 was reported negative on August 29.\n Aug 27 ConAgra Verification sample 36 was reported negative on August 30.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 110\n\x0c 336 beef trim lots tested by ConAgra \xe2\x80\x93 5 confirmed positive for\n Aug 26-30 ConAgra\n E. coli O157:H7.\n Aug 28 ConAgra Verification sample 37 was reported negative on August 30.\n Galligan Wholesale Recalled about 980 pounds of ground beef pepper patties that\n Meat Co. were potentially contaminated on June 14 with E-coli O157:H7\n from product recalled by ConAgra. OIG audit team discovered the\n Aug 30\n problem.\n\n ConAgra Verification sample 38 was reported negative on September 5.\nSeptember 2002\n Sample for Wolf Brand product was taken. Results were reported\n positive on September 16. The contaminated product was\n Sep 10 ConAgra cooked. FSIS inspection personnel had not written an NR as of\n September 25 (the final day of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s in-plant review). Random\n sample was reported negative on September 16.\n Sep 11 ConAgra Verification sample 39 was reported negative on September 14.\nNovember 2002\n Nov 15 ConAgra FSIS withdrew inspection.\n FSIS again provided inspection personnel to ConAgra to allow the\n Nov 20 ConAgra\n plant to continue full operations.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 111\n\x0cEXHIBIT D \xe2\x80\x93 REPETITIVE NRs WRITTEN FOR ZERO TOLERANCE\nVIOLATIONS\n\n\n Calendar Years 2001 and 2002\n\n NR Department with Violation\n Number Date Slaughter Fabrication Var. Meats\n 00001-01 01/02/01 X1\n 00003-01 01/08/01 X1\n 00006-01 01/11/01 X2\n 00009-01 01/16/01 X2\n 00010-01 01/17/01 X3\n 00011-01 01/17/01 X3\n 00012-01 01/24/01 X4\n 00013-01 01/29/01 X4\n 00014-01 01/30/01 X5\n 00019-01 02/26/01 X6\n 00020-01 03/06/01 X5\n 00021-01 03/13/01 X6\n 00030-01 05/08/01 X7\n 00035-01 05/16/01 X8\n 00045-01 07/02/01 X9\n 00053-01 07/13/01 X10\n 00057-01 07/30/01 X11\n 00058-01 07/30/01 X7\n 00059-01 07/31/01 X12\n 00060-01 08/01/01 X13\n 00061-01 08/01/01 X8\n 00066-01 08/10/01 X9\n 00067-01 08/14/01 X14\n 00068-01 08/15/01 X15\n 00072-01 08/25/01 X16\n 00075-01 09/04/01 X10\n 00077-01 09/08/01 X11\n 00079-01 09/13/01 X12\n 00080-01 09/15/01 X13\n 00081-01 09/15/01 X14\n 00083-01 10/09/01 X1\n 00084-01 10/11/01 X2\n 00086-01 10/24/01 X15\n 00088-01 11/07/01 X16\n 00093-01 12/05/01 X17\n 00095-01 12/05/01 X17\n 00101-01 12/17/01 X18\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 112\n\x0c Calendar Years 2001 and 2002\n\n NR Department with Violation\n Number Date Slaughter Fabrication Var. Meats\n 00102-01 12/21/01 X18\n 00103-01 12/28/01 X19\n Total 2001 39 19 18 2\n 00009-02 01/22/02 X1\n 00010-02 01/25/02 X2\n 00012-02 01/29/02 X1\n 00016-02 02/18/02 X1\n 00019-02 02/19/02 X2\n 00020-02 02/20/02 X3\n 00021-02 03/05/02 X4\n 00022-02 03/06/02 X2\n 00025-02 04/09/02 X5\n 00026-02 04/11/02 X3\n 02-2002 06/06/02 X3\n Recall 06/30/02\n Expanded 07/18/02\n 06-2002 07/25/02 X4\n 12-2002 09/04/02 X5\n 14-2002 09/10/02 X6\n 15-2002 09/10/02 X7\n 18-2002 09/16/02 X8\n 21-2002 09/27/02 X6\n 24-2002 10/02/02 X9\n 26-2002 10/07/02 X10\n 33-2002 10/28/02 X11\n 38-2002 11/04/02 X12\n 40-2002 11/06/02 X13\n 43-2002 11/12/02 X7\n 44-2002 11/13/02 X14\n 45-2002 11/13/02 X8\n 46-2002 11/14/02 X9\n 47-2002 11/14/02 X15\n Total 2002 27 15 9 3\n Total for 2001-2002 66 34 27 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 113\n\x0cEXHIBIT E \xe2\x80\x93 DETAILS OF FLAWS IN HACCP PLANS\n\n\n\nThe above exhibit can be requested pursuant to the Freedom of\nInformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(a)(3)(A) by contacting:\n\n Freedom of Information Act Officer\n Food Safety and Inspection Service\n U.S. Department of Agriculture\n 1400 Independence Avenue SW.\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n Telephone: (202) 690-3881\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 114\n\x0cEXHIBIT F \xe2\x80\x93 EXAMPLES OF UNSANITARY PRACTICES AND\nVIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES AT CONAGRA\n\n Observations on USDA Inspection Personnel\n\n 1. An FSIS inspector was observed walking on the moving viscera table after all\n pre-operational procedures and sanitization of the surfaces had been performed\n by the plant. The boots the inspector was wearing were the same boots that he\n had used to walk on the contaminated floor.\n\n 2. Lock Out/Tag Out procedures as defined in FSIS directives were not followed.\n\n 3. No documentation was kept for noncompliance found by FSIS GS-7 inspectors\n while conducting pre-operational sanitation verifications on the slaughter floor.\n The noncompliances were orally passed to a GS-9 inspector. The GS-9 inspector\n then notified the establishment of the noncompliances found orally at a weekly\n sanitation meeting. No record of the meeting was made by FSIS and no\n documentation of the noncompliances observed by FSIS personnel was made on\n an FSIS Form 5400-4, Noncompliance Record. There were no NRs issued for the\n year 2002 for pre-operational sanitation verifications by FSIS. This is not\n indicative of SSOP\xe2\x80\x99s pre-operational sanitation verification methodology, as\n illustrated by FSIS Directive 5400.5, XI, A, or as outlined in the regulations.\n\n 4. FSIS inspection personnel did not follow the personal hygiene rules of the\n establishment. We noted beard nets were not worn by one inspector and one\n veterinary medical officer and hairnets were improperly worn by three FSIS\n inspectors because they were completely under their issued helmets. (ConAgra\n SOP 213 requires that the hairnet must cover all of the hair.)\n\n 5. Inspectors did not hold samples under security until shipped.\n\n 6. The local inspectors did not write an NR, as required by procedure, after FSIS\n tested a sample of ground beef on September 10, 2002, and found it to be positive\n for E. coli O157:H7 on September 16, 2002. An NR had not been written as of\n September 25, 2002. The IIC said he was aware the procedure required an NR,\n but could not explain why an NR was not prepared.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 115\n\x0c Observations on ConAgra Production Areas\n\n 1. Cleaning crew from the contracted cleaning service followed each monitor in a\n \xe2\x80\x9cbucket brigade.\xe2\x80\x9d That is, the contract cleaning personnel followed the official\n SSOP monitors with green rags, with and without buckets of soap, and attempted\n to clean the noncompliances as they were pointed out by the official SSOP\n monitor. In many instances, the residual meat, fat, or blood was simply rinsed off\n with potable water or wiped off with a rag. (In general, inspection personnel were\n of the opinion that the conditions we cited would be corrected by the plant using a\n sanitizing foam that killed bacteria before the start of operations.)\n\n 2. The SSOP monitor crawled on top of edible contact surfaces so that the top of her\n contaminated boot rested on an edible product contact surface. The area was not\n identified by the monitor as needing to be recleaned after she contaminated the\n surfaces through unhygienic practices. (When the GS-9 inspector was questioned\n as to whether he saw a problem with the unhygienic practices of the plant\xe2\x80\x99s SSOP\n monitor, the inspector answered, \xe2\x80\x9cNo, they sanitize everything before they start.\xe2\x80\x9d)\n\n 3. A large overhead refrigeration drip pan was observed draining out what appeared\n to be water onto the edible product cutting boards below.\n\n 4. Standing water was observed in an overhead drip pan suspended over a belt. No\n drain was apparent. A later walk through the area revealed that the water had not\n been drained out.\n\n 5. A drain from a catch pan for overhead frosted-over pipes was noted bent so that\n the angle of the drain would force water above the lowest point in the pan. This\n lowest point of the drain pan was bent down directly over an edible product belt.\n\n 6. Large amounts of condensation were observed on numerous uncleaned overhead\n structures. The condensation was wiped down so that the excess contaminated\n condensate dripped/fell directly onto food product contact and nonfood product\n contact surfaces.\n\n 7. Black grease observed on two belts.\n\n 8. Packaging material for products observed being loaded and staged into the\n fabrication room before the room being released by the official SSOP monitor or\n FSIS.\n\n 9. Spinal cord tissue observed in neck bones being prepared for advanced meat\n recovery. (NOTE: The audit team was informed later in the day that the\n combo-bin of product was plant-condemned.)\n\n 10. Residual droplets of clear fluid identified by the quality assurance manager as\n sanitizer (200 ppm of quaternary ammonia) were observed on the stainless steel\n chutes above the boneless beef trimmings. The droplets of sanitizer were\n observed falling directly into the combo-bin of edible beef trimmings destined for\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 116\n\x0c grinding into raw ground beef. Similar droplets were observed on other stainless\n steel overhead structures in the grinding area. According to the quality assurance\n manager, this is the same concentration level used on direct product contact\n surfaces without a potable water rinse.\n\n 11. In one case, the official SSOP monitor pointed out dried blood to a contract\n sanitation worker for correction and went on with her inspection. The sanitation\n worker did not clean the noncompliant area. In a similar case, the official monitor\n did not observe an approximately 3.5 inches by 1 inch area of blood on the\n automated hind quarter deboning drop in fabrication. It was then pointed out to\n the contract cleaning crew by the quality assurance manager. The quality\n assurance manager, the SSOP monitor, and the cleaning crew all left the area. A\n contract-cleaning crewmember tried to correct the noncompliance. He jumped up\n to try to reach the noncompliance with a rag to wipe it off, but could not reach it.\n He then shrugged his shoulders and left the area.\n\n 12. Related to the contract cleaning crew, there were uncleaned overhead structures\n and the porous concrete ceilings were wet with condensate and beaded\n condensation. Pressurized air is used to dry the surfaces. Workers use air hoses\n equipped with about 6-foot copper piping to focus air directly onto the overhead\n surfaces to dry the wet, porous concrete ceiling and overhead surfaces. This\n practice potentially spreads overhead debris, dust, organic matter; condensate\n contaminated by formation on the uncleaned surfaces, and microorganisms onto\n the food product contact surfaces below.\n\n 13. Squeegees and poles wrapped with rags darkened by contamination are used to\n wipe condensate from unclean overhead structures. The condensate was\n observed falling onto food product contact surfaces (belts, cutting boards, etc.).\n These surfaces were previously cleaned by the cleaning contractors. This practice\n potentially contaminates the food product contact surfaces below.\n\n 14. Hoses from the floor were observed being dragged over edible product contact\n belts and other food product contact surfaces. Workers routinely picked up hoses\n and other equipment from the floor with their hands and then touched product\n contact surfaces after the cleaning procedure was completed.\n\n 15. The contract cleaning crew was observed using metal rods to prop up edible\n product contact belts to aid in the inspection by the official SSOP monitors. The\n rods were observed being routinely dragged, dropped, and temporarily stored on\n the contaminated floor before, during, and after their use to aid inspection of edible\n food product contact surfaces. The food product contact surfaces, on which the\n rods were used, were previously cleaned by the cleaning contractors as the room\n was presented to the official SSOP monitors for monitoring.\n\n 16. Hoses were used to rinse down meat, fat, etc., on food product contact and\n nonfood product contact surfaces of equipment and utensils with potable water\n without further cleaning.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 117\n\x0c 17. The official SSOP monitors observed (about three of five) concentrated monitoring\n procedures on nonfood product contact surfaces, equipment, and utensils rather\n than on direct food product contact surfaces.\n\n 18. The official SSOP monitors were observed using unsanitary hygienic practices\n during their monitoring procedures. For example, the monitors examined the\n undersides of perforated treads on ladders and other contaminated nonfood\n product contact surfaces through organoleptic \xe2\x80\x9ctouch\xe2\x80\x9d methodology. The official\n SSOP monitors then organoleptically examined direct food product contact\n surfaces through \xe2\x80\x9ctouch\xe2\x80\x9d methodology without washing and/or sanitizing their\n hands. A monitor was noted wiping her nose on her forearm and then proceeding\n to resume her SSOP monitoring of direct food product contact surfaces without\n washing or sanitizing her hands or forearm. A monitor was observed adjusting\n and putting on her personal protective gear and then proceeding to resume her\n SSOP monitoring of direct food product contact surfaces without washing or\n sanitizing her hands. A monitor was seen scratching her head through a hairnet\n and then proceeding to resume her SSOP monitoring of direct food product\n contact surfaces without washing or sanitizing her hands. An official SSOP\n monitor was observed walking on the movable viscera table in the slaughter\n department to inspect equipment. The moving table had previously been cleaned\n as it was released by the cleaning contractor for the ConAgra monitoring. The\n SSOP monitor wore the same boots used to walk on the contaminated floor. The\n table was not recleaned or reinspected. The official SSOP monitors either ignored\n or were not cognizant of the numerous incidences of direct product contact surface\n contamination by the contracted cleaning crew or themselves through improper\n equipment handling, employee hygiene practices, or cleaning methodology.\n\n 19. Large sections of mold (12 feet by 2 feet) and chipping and flaking paint were\n observed on the overhead structures and ceilings of the offal room in the slaughter\n department. Mold was noted in two other production areas.\n\n 20. Cracks in welds were also observed on stainless steel chutes that connect to the\n ceiling in the offal department and on one wash table for the offal.\n\n 21. During line operation in fabrication, an employee was noted trimming fecal\n material and not sanitizing her knife before trimming the next item.\n\n 22. Contract cleaning personnel observed using a hose to fill the sanitizer pump. The\n hose was submerged in the sanitizer and overflowing. The other end of the hose\n was placed over the nozzle of a faucet of a hand wash sink without an air gap,\n thus covering the entire faucet head. This could lead to possible back-siphoning\n of nonpotable materials into the water supply.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 118\n\x0cEXHIBIT G \xe2\x80\x93 FSIS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 119\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 120\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 121\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 122\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 123\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 124\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 125\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 126\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 127\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 128\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 129\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 130\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 131\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 132\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 133\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 134\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 135\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 136\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 137\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 138\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 139\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 140\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 141\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 142\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 143\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 144\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 145\n\x0c ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\nAct - Federal Meat Inspection Act\n\nAER - Administrative Enforcement Report\n\nARS - Agricultural Research Service\n\nCCP - Critical Control Point\n\nCDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\n\nConAgra - ConAgra Beef Company\n\nCFR - Code of Federal Regulations\n\nCO - Compliance Officer\n\nCS - Circuit Supervisor\n\nCSO - Consumer Safety Officer\n\nE. coli - Escherichia coli\n\nFDA - Food and Drug Administration\n\nFMFIA - Federal Manager\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Integrity Act\n\nFSI - Food Safety Investigation\n\nFSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service\n\nFSRE - Food Safety Regulatory Essentials\n\nGalligan - Galligan Wholesale Meat Company\n\nGAO - General Accounting Office\n\nGRAS - Generally Recognized as Safe\n\nHACCP - Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point\n\nIIC - Inspector-In-Charge\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 146\n\x0cIPPS - In-Plant Performance System Reviews\n\nISO - International Organization for Standardization\n\nISP - Inspection System Procedure\n\nLEARN - Laboratory Electronic Application for Results Notification\n\nMontana Quality\n Foods - Montana Quality Foods & Processing, Inc.\n\nMOU - Memorandum of Understanding\n\nNOIE - Notice of Intended Enforcement\n\nNR - Noncompliance Record\n\nOCP - Other Consumer Protections\n\nOCFO - Office of the Chief Financial Officer\n\nOFO - Office of Field Operations\n\nOIG - Office of Inspector General\n\nOPEER - Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement, and Review\n\nOPHS - Office of Public Health and Safety\n\nPBIS - Performance Based Inspection System\n\nPFGE - Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis\n\nPPM - Parts Per Million\n\nRMD - Recall Management Division\n\nSCO - Supervisory Compliance Officer\n\nSOP - Standard Operating Procedure\n\nSPS - Sanitation Performance Standards\n\nSSOP - Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures\n\nSVMO - Supervisory Veterinary Medical Officer\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 147\n\x0cTSC - Technical Service Center\n\nUSDA - U. S. Department of Agriculture\n\nVMO - Veterinary Medical Officer\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 148\n\x0c GLOSSARY OF TERMS\n\n\nChub A tube type package containing processed meat.\n\nCombo A bin or box containing either 1,000 or 2,000 pounds of\n beef products.\n\nFabrication Department The section of the plant devoted to processing carcasses\n into primal cuts and other non-intact beef products, such as\n trim and raw ground beef.\n\nSlaughter Department The section of the plant devoted to slaughtering cattle and\n dressing out beef carcasses.\n\nSmall Boxing Procedure of re-packaging beef trim from combo boxes into\n smaller boxes for re-sale to processing plants that produce\n fully cooked products. This procedure was followed when\n combo boxes were rejected at grinding facilities due to\n positive tests for E. coli O157:H7.\n\nVariety Meats Department The section of the plant devoted to processing offal\n products.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/24601-2-KC Page 149\n\x0cInformational copies of this report have been distributed to:\n\n\nAdministrator, FSIS\n ATTN: Director, Internal Control Staff (20)\nGeneral Accounting Office (1)\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer\n Director, Planning and Accountability Division (1)\n\x0c"