1. Food Safety Management in the U.S.
Meat Industry
Peter Taormina, Ph.D.
Principal Microbiologist, Corporate Food Safety & Quality
John Morrell Food Group
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
9th International Meat Industrialization Seminar
Chapecó, SC, Brazil | 20 September 2012

2. Smithfield Foods, Inc. - U.S. Pork Group

3. John Morrell Food Group Locations
18 operating plants
2 corporate offices
(Cincinnati, OH & Lisle, IL)
~$3.9B Ann. Sales (FY2012)

4. Some Products

5. Just what is safety?
• safety n 1: the condition of being safe
from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or
loss.
• safe adj 1: freed from harm or risk: UNHURT
2a: secure from threat of danger, harm, or
loss
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979

6. Food Safety Hazards
• Pathogenic microorganisms and microbial
toxins
• Allergens
• Foreign Objects
• Chemical Contaminants
• Economic Adulteration
• Intentional Contamination (Food Defense)

7. Recalls
Class of Recall U.S. Food and U.S. Department of
Drug Agriculture (USDA)
Administration
(FDA)
Class I serious adverse reasonable
health probability health
consequences or problems or death
death
Class II may cause potential hazard
temporary or remote probability of
reversible harm or adverse health
probability is remote consequences
Class III not likely to cause will not cause
adverse health adverse health
consequences consequences

8. Factor Risk Indices By Food Product
Sector
In-Transit Risk
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Bulk liquids (dedicated tanker)
Bulk raw ingredients
Eggs and egg products
Frozen foods
Fresh produce
Meat & poultry (raw)
Other nonperishables
Packaging materials
Refrigerated raw & RTE
Soft-packed nonperishables
Seafood (raw)
>100 indicates greater than average risk for that factor
adapted from Ackerley et al., 2010. Food Prot. Trends.

9. Distribution of Primary Reportable Food
Registry Entries by Food Safety Hazard
Year 1 Year 2
FDA, Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program, THE REPORTABLE FOOD REGISTRY:
TARGETING INSPECTION RESOURCES AND IDENTIFYING PATTERNS OF ADULTERATION
Second Annual Report: September 8, 2010 – September 7, 2011

10. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsFoodborneEstimates/
from Scallan et al. 2011. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17(1)7-15

11. Three Pillars of Successful Food
Safety Management
Culture Science Systems

12. Culture

13. Culture
• Food safety culture
– Behavior-based
– Ethos

14. Creating a Food Safety Culture
1. Expectations
2. Education
3. Communication of food safety messages
frequently
4. Goals and measurements
5. Consequences and rewards for
behaviors

15. Managerial Complexity, Dependent
Upon Ambiguity and Uncertainty
Luning and Marcelis. 2006. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17:378-385
Wageningen University, The Netherlands

16. The Techno-Managerial Approach
Luning and Marcelis. 2006. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17:378-385

17. Food Safety Culture
• Covers the intangibles and grey areas
• Foundational for food safety management

18. The First Step in HACCP
• Gain management support
• “The criticality of gaining management support for
HACCP programs cannot be over emphasized. Without
a long term commitment, the time and effort required to
develop and implement such a program cannot be
sustained, particularly when decisions related to process
deviations require actions that may negatively impact
productivity or profitability.”
– R.L. Buchanan. 2012. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System: Use
in Managing Microbiological Food Safety Risks, Chap. 46 In Doyle, M.P. and
R.L. Buchanan, eds. “Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 4th
ed.” ASM Press. Washington DC.

19. Attributes of Food Safety Culture
• Top-down commitment
• Autonomy of the chief food safety
executive
– Final Macro decisions
• Employee contribution
– Micro decisions
– Ownership/empowerment

20. Food Safety Culture Covers the
Intangibles and “Grey Areas”
• You cannot do everything
– Need cooperation from personnel in
operations, engineering, sales, marketing, etc.
• You cannot be everywhere all the time
– Worker training (education)

21. Food Safety Culture
• Old way: penalize plants for positive
pathogen test results in their environment.
• New way:
– Listeria hunters – reward plants for proactively
searching out niches and destroying Listeria
in the production environment

22. Science

23. Science
• Hazard Analysis
• Scientific Validation
• Statistically-Based
Sampling

24. Cooling of Thermally-Treated Meat &
Poultry Products
• Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) Systems; Final Rule 9CFR Part 304, et al.
• Appendix B: Compliance Guidelines for Cooling Heat-Treated Meat and
Poultry Products (Stabilization) – Clostridium botulinum and C.
perfringens
• Performance Standard is less than 1-log increase in C.
perfringens
– Safe Harbor for Uncured
• 120ºF to 55ºF within 6 h, then down to 40°F
• 130ºF to 80ºF in 5 h 80ºF to 45ºF in 10 hours (15 hours total cooling
time)
– Safe Harbor for Cured
• 130ºF to 80ºF within 1.5 h, 80ºF to 40ºF within 5 hours (6.5 hours total
cooling time)
or
– Validated “customized process” that prevents a 1 log increase in C.
perfringens and C. botulinum

25. Validation of Safe Cooling
Temperature Profiles of Rare Prime Rib
Probe 388 Probe 393 Probe 407 Probe 389
Probe 737 Probe 419 Probe 536
135
120
18/20 lbs
105
Temperature (°F)
90
16/18 lbs
75
14/16 lbs
60
12/14 lbs
45
30
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (h)
Internal temperatures of the various weight ranges of ribeye select (rare) were monitored during chilling with
7 calibrated probes. Probes were placed in the geometric center of each ribeye. USDA guidelines for roast
beef stabilization are cooling from 120°F to 55° in 6 hours or less.
F

26. Extended Cooling of Ham and PMP 6.1 Prediction
of C. perfringens Growth in Cured Beef
Temperature (oF) Population UCL LCL
140 3.5
Population (log CFU/g)
120 3
Temperature ( oF)
100 2.5
80 2
60 1.5
40 1
20 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h)

27. Laboratory Simulation of Extended Cooling of
Ham Inoculated with Clostridium perfringens
180
160
2.7 log10 CFU/g
140
Temperature ( F)
o
120
100
2.5
80
60
2.9
40
6h 20 h
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Time (h)

28. Publications
Scientific Support
Organizations
Predictive Models
Specific Solutions
Targeted Action

29. Science
• Without science, you can spend a lot of
effort on things that will impart no
substantive reduction of risk but will…
– Provide a false sense of security
– Cost money
– Keep you busy
– Make you look good
• Appease media…

30. Finished Product Testing
• Listeria monocytogenes
sampling of dry sausage
• “severe direct” health
hazard
• Conditions of handling
the food would reduce the
degree of concern
• Case 13 sampling:
2-class, n = 15, c = 0
International Commission on
Microbiological Specifications for
Foods, 1986

31. Statistically-Based Sampling
• If 10% of lot was the
contaminated, and you
test 15 samples:
– 70% chance you would
detect the contamination
• If 0.1% contaminated
– 10% chance you would
detect the contaminant
– 90% chance that
contamination slips through
– You would have to test 50
units to reach 95%
confidence

32. Cost of Product Testing for
Pathogens (Hold & Test)
• Overnight shipping samples R$ 133
• R$30 per pathogen test x 15 R$ 450
• Product hold time for 48h R$ 6,130
R$ 6,713
320 lots of production/year R$ 2,148,160

33. “It’s been tested”

34. Sample Size Sensitivity
25 g
5,500 g Result = NEGATIVE
…but less than 0.5%
of the product
sample was actually
tested

35. Environmental Sampling
A Better Sample

36. Systems

37. Why Systems?
• Change Management
– Workflow
• Gatekeepers
– Checks and Balances
• Consensus
– Standardized
specifications
– Codes of practice
– Qualification of
vendors
– Qualification as a
vendor

38. Three Key Systems
• HACCP
– Risk management system
• Auditing
– Governmental (USDA, FDA)
– Third-Party (GFSI)
– Customer-Specific
• Worker training

39. Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP)
• First systematic way to manage risk in
food production
– U.S. Army Natick Laboratories and the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
– Pillsbury Company (contractor)
• Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
• Haz-Ops

40. Seven Principles of HACCP
1. Conduct a hazard analysis.
2. Determine the critical control points (CCPs).
3. Establish critical limits (CLs).
4. Establish monitoring procedures.
5. Establish corrective actions.
6. Establish verification procedures.
7. Establish record-keeping and documentation
procedures.

41. HACCP – Then and Now
• Initially, many CCPs
• Currently, as few
CCPs as possible
– Prerequisite programs
– CPs

42. “HACCP Is Dead”
• “Hazard analysis is qualitative, whereas
risk assessment is now used to quantify
risk. However, the public wants and
expects a risk-free food supply, so no level
of risk is ultimately seen as acceptable..”
- Dean O. Cliver, Ph.D. (late), Emeritus Member of IFT, Professor
Emeritus of Food Safety, University of California, Davis,
Food Technology March 2010, Volume 64, No.3

43. “HACCP Is Dead”
• “Diluting the power of the CCP by saying
that it may merely reduce risk to an
acceptable level (not eliminate the hazard)
has degraded HACCP to a fashionable,
hollow acronym.”
- Dean O. Cliver, Ph.D. (late), Emeritus Member of IFT, Professor
Emeritus of Food Safety, University of California, Davis,
Food Technology March 2010, Volume 64, No.3

44. What’s Next for HACCP?
• SPC
• System thinking
• eHACCP

45. Third-Party Auditing
• Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)
– The Consumer Goods Forum
• 16 Board Members of Industry (retail and supplier)
• Advisory Council:
– WTO, FAO, CDC, FDA
• GFSI Recognized Schemes:
– BRC, CanadaGAP, FSSC 22000, Global Aquaculture,
GLOBAL G.A.P., GRMS, IFS, PrimusGFS, SQF

46. Audits
• USDA-FSIS
• FDA
• CODEX Alimentarius
• GFSI (1 of 9 schemes)
• Customers

48. Niche!

49. Training
• Various training systems are available
• Training should be…
– Multilingual
– Followed by certification (i.e. testing)
– Documented
– Repeated and reinforced

50. Qual é a causa principal de
revocações nos Estados Unidos?

51. Mislabeling

52. Mislabeling -
Printed Packaging Film
Allergen
Free
Product
Allergen
Containing
Product

53. Allergen Label Training &
Management System

54. Three Pillars of Successful Food
Safety Management
Culture Science Systems

55. Successful Food Safety
Management
• Culture
– Management commitment & leadership
– Employee buy-in
• Science
– Hazard analysis
– Validation
– Sampling
• Systems
– HACCP
– Auditing
– Training