Food Safety Challenges for the Meat Industry Liz Wagstrom, DVM, MS, DACVPM

1. Food Safety Challenges for the Meat Industry Liz Wagstrom, DVM, MS, DACVPM Chief Veterinarian, NPPC

2. Challenges • Societal • Microbiological

3. Societal Challenges • Farmers make up less than 5% of the public • Many of the general public have little concept of where food comes from • Price and safety main drivers in their decisions

4. Unfamiliarity with Farming • In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture  • As of 2008, approximately 2-3 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture. • There are more people locked up in prisons in the U.S. than there are farmers.

6. Societal Challenges • Others are very interested in food, and the story behind the food they put on their tables • Many want to step back to what fits their picture of farming • What are the pros and cons? • Societal issues may be perceived as affecting food safety

10. U.S. Trichinellosis Cases

12. Societal Challenges • Risk Aversion • But is risk well understood? • Uncertainty • Labeling – what is in my food?

15. Still, if you're one of the many Americans who's been quick to pounce on the "disgusting" nature of "pink slime," it's worth pausing to make sure you're acting out of a rational assessment of its pros and cons and not just trial by moniker.HUFF POST FOOD

20. 2009 Misinformation

21. Economic Devastation - 2009

23. Microbiological Challenges

24. Farm to Fork Approach • Or – should it be fork to farm approach? • Where is the best place to position an intervention? • Efficacy • Cost effectiveness • Compliance

25. Illnesses by Known Foodborne Pathogens 58.1% - norovirus 9.0% - Campylobacter spp. 10.9% - Salmonella 0.7% - E. coli O157:H7 1.2% - E. coli, non-O157:H7 STEC 0.0% - Listeria monocytogenes Source: Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson M-A, Roy SL, et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2011 Jan [accessed December 27, 2010]. http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/17/1/7.htm.

26. Salmonella as an Example • Ubiquitous • Numerous serotypes • No consistent strategy for on-farm control • No appropriate attribution data

27. Incidence of Foodborne Illness 1996-2011: Salmonella* 2020 National Health Objective: 11.4 2010 National Health Objective: 6.8 Incidence per 100,000 Population Incidence per 100,000 Population *Table 2b. FoodNet –Incidence of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections by Year 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/data/trends/tables/table2a-b.html#table-2b. Accessed August 1, 2012.

29. Foods Associated with Salmonella Outbreaks1 1These contaminated ingredients or single foods (belonging to one food category) were associated with 1/3 of the Salmonella outbreaks. 2Other includes: Sprouts, leafy greens, roots, fish, grains-beans, shellfish, oil-sugar, and dairy. Source: CDC National Outbreak Reporting System, 2004–2008.

30. Salmonella Positives in Young Chickens* 68% Reduction 13% Reduction After July 1, 2011 Through June 30, 2011 *FSIS results of broilers analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

31. Salmonella Positives in Market Hogs* 62% Reduction *FSIS results of market hogs analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

32. Salmonella Positives in Cows/Bulls* 70% Reduction *FSIS results of cows/bulls analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

33. Salmonella Positives in Steers/Heifers* 50% Reduction *FSIS results of steers/heifers analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

34. Salmonella Positives in Ground Beef* 68% Reduction *FSIS results of ground beef analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

35. Salmonella Positives in Ground Chicken* 31% Reduction *FSIS results of ground chicken analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

36. Salmonella Positives in Ground Turkey* 75% Reduction *FSIS results of ground turkey analyzed for Salmonella http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

37. Salmonella Positives in Turkey* 88% Reduction 41% Increase After July 1, 2011 Through June 30, 2011 *FSIS results of turkey analyzed for Salmonella. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf#page=19; accessed May 22, 2012

38. Salmonella Control • Significant reductions on carcasses and in final (meat) products • In-plant hygiene controls largely responsible for reductions • On-farm controls not consistent • Can incremental benefits be gained from on-farm interventions? • Performance standards being lowered (chicken, turkey; market hogs tbd) • However, human case incidence not impacted

39. Final Thoughts • What are the unanswered questions that will allow control? • What human factors account for susceptibility? • Why do some species cause disease, others rarely • Are causative species commodity specific? • Attribution to food and animal source • On-farm, in-plant, post-processing interventions

40. Summary