Your Future -- Your Workplace

Going Public in Our Communities: 
Public Services - Our Right
April 1 to 4, 2001

If the proposed changes to the Meat Inspection Act are adopted, processing plants will no longer be subject to the current provisions of the legislation under which each complete or partial carcass must be inspected by a designated inspector. In short, federal inspectors would cease to be responsible for carcass inspections and would simply monitor the packing process and the work of ‘defects detectors’.

Who are the ‘defects detectors’? Employees of the food producers. They would be responsible for checking whether the animal is fit for human consumption. These ‘detectors’, who would only have two to four weeks training, are salaried plant workers. Would they have the autonomy to stop plant production if they see a problem? Not likely. Not only do they not have the proper training but they are paid by the food producer. In short, this process is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

The meat industry already puts a lot of pressure on the inspectors not to slow down or stop the production line which would mess up the companies’ rigid quick delivery scheduling with the retail stores and supermarkets. Federal inspectors stationed in meat plants under federal jurisdiction keep a watchful eye on the line of carcasses and viscera going by them and hold back anything of concern. With industry employees, intimidation by the plant managers could leave in question the safety of products heading off to consumers in Canada and overseas.

For some time now Canada has been scaling back the government inspection system through the Frequency of Inspection Level (FOIL), the Food Safety Enhancement Program (FSEP) and the Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP).

Under the current HACCP program, more responsibility for food inspection is being shifted to the food processing industry. An international initiative, HACCP has been in the works for almost 10 years with very little public awareness. HACCP was conceived when governments all over the world were looking for ways to cut spending. However, it appears that HACCP means something different in every country.

Reports state that in Japan a milk processing company temporarily closed 21 plants in July, 2000, after officials tracked 12,000 food poisoning cases to the milk facility. According to reports this plant would not have been HACCP approved in Canada but the standards change from country to country. The only consistent factor is that food processors are taking a more active role in doing food safety inspections on the food they process.

In Canada, HACCP is deeply entrenched in the poultry processing plants. Plant employees do inspection under government supervision provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Does the Agency have a problem with this? No, because it means the CFIA can work quietly behind the scenes wherever farm products are processed into food and at the same time save money.

In the highly automated poultry processing plants where HACCP operating principles were first adopted, the kill chain speed has gone from between 5,000 to 6,000 birds per hour to 10,000 per hour in the last 10 years. Under HACCP the bulk of meat inspection is being done by processing plant employees under CFIA staff supervision at line speeds that make proper inspection less assured.

Does the consumer know how the meat they serve is currently being inspected? The introduction of HACCP was done without any public debate at the consumer level. HACCP enjoys the support at almost all levels in the food production chain from the farm commodity group leaders to the corporate board rooms and policy tables in the federal government. They all think faster and cheaper meat and poultry inspection is a good thing. Perhaps it’s time to bring the consumers and family farm operators up to speed on what is going on.

According to the University of Guelph, , as of August 2000, 237 of the 735 federally-registered establishments had implemented HACCP systems that were recognized by the CFIA, with 254 more seeking HACCP recognition.

The University also confirms that in HACCP analyses, the risks posed by chemical residues are weighed within the context of all potential food safety risks for a given facility. The CFIA’s generic HACCP model for cattle slaughter operations ranks residue control as a rather low priority on the list of potential hazards. The model’s introduction claims that contrary to prevalent public perception, ‘no major risk has been attributed to residues’; in contrast, microbial contamination represents a significant human health risk. Chemical residues are routinely monitored, but they are not regarded as a high priority by Canada’s food safety inspection system.

Last November, the Canadian Health Coalition released an audit of Canada’s food safety system conducted by European Commission officials which reveals uncontrolled use of cancer-causing hormones, antibiotics, endocrine-disruptors and other agro-chemicals in meat.

In May 1998 the European Union warned Canada in an earlier audit of the need for immediate corrective measures. This warning was ignored. The latest audit confirmed that the federal government has shifted from the precautionary principle in food safety to a risk management approach. Instead of preventing harm from happening in the first place, food safety regulators manage the damage after the harm is done. The shift to risk management repudiates a lesson learned from Europe’s Mad Cow Disease. The inquiry concluded that precautionary measures must be taken to protect human health in a situation of uncertainty.

The United States government, which attempted to implement an industry self-inspection system, was forced by an appeal court to review its plan. The American legislation, as is the case with the Canadian legislation, effectively states that each carcass must be inspected by a government inspector. However, unlike the United States, the legislative changes being considered by the Canadian government would allow the latter to circumvent this essential element of food safety protection.

HACCP was introduced to deal with increasing inspection costs. But the question remains, what price food safety? Moreover, with an economically wealthy industry, and billion dollar government surplus, there is no reason that Canadian consumers should not expect the best food safety inspection program that money can buy.

With more and more questions being raised about the safety of Canada’s meat and meat products now is the time for Canadians to call for a halt to the shift to risk management of our country’s food inspection system.

It’s time for the federal government to put the inspection back in the hands of qualified federal food inspectors. It’s also time for the inspection process to be strengthened not relaxed.

The PSAC represents some 2,000 federal food inspectors, and is a member of the Canadian Health Coalition.