Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
2
Transparency and Food Safety and Inspection Service Data-Sharing
TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE OF DATA
Generally, the release of data like those being contemplated by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is motivated by two broad purposes. The first reflects the principle that
public access to information about the activities of government is basic to democratic
governance. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966 and amended later,
exemplifies the broad aim of transparency and the public’s “right to know”. 9 Although the term
“right to know” might have various interpretations, the committee uses it as it pertains to the
broad public interest in access to information regarding government activities, including its
regulatory activities. In this regard, the report is identifying the public interest in providing
access to information arising from inspections that can be used broadly by the public for
purposes ranging from research by academics to investigative journalism by the media. This is
in contrast with the second broad purpose: “targeted transparency” which deals with the release
of information to achieve specific outcomes of public benefit (e.g. risk reduction from
exposures). As a prime example of targeted transparency, the Bhopal accident led to the passage
of the Toxic Release Inventory, which is a disclosure policy directed at the provision of emission
information to reduce exposures to potentially dangerous chemicals from manufacturers. In
short, this is an example of a response to a public health risk that was addressed through the
requirement of disclosure of specific types of information.
Although the vast majority of data collected by FSIS are not made publicly available,
some can be accessed through FOIA. 10 FSIS data that may be obtained through FOIA requests
include the following:
9
The Freedom of Information Act, Pub. L. 89-487, July 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 250 (codified as amended at 5 USC §
552(b) 2000). See Fung et al. (2007), pp. 25–29, for a discussion of the origins of disclosure policies.
10
Although strictly speaking these data are already available via FOIA, such a change in policy would represent
more than a mere increase in the dissemination of disaggregated data. Making this information readily available in a
digital format makes it accessible to a far wider set of users and useful for a potentially broader set of purposes.
Throughout this report, therefore, the committee uses the term disclosure (rather than dissemination) in describing
the provision of FSIS information via the Internet.
13
OCR for page 14
Microbiological sampling and testing data (for example, testing for Escherichia coli
O157:H7, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes).
Residue sampling and testing data (for example, testing for drug, pesticide and other
chemical residues).
Facility-specific noncompliance records (NRs) identified during routine inspection
activities.
Food-safety assessments (FSAs), evaluations of the entirety of a facility’s food-safety
program, including the nature and source of raw materials, processes, the environment,
and all other aspects included under the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
(HACCP) 11 plan.
Facility-specific HACCP verifications.
Foodborne-disease outbreak investigation closeout reports.
Depending on the individual circumstance (case by case), portions of the data listed
above may be withheld under one or more FOIA exemptions. The specific reasons for denying
FOIA requests for data or for not releasing data in their entirety or original form are given in Box
2-1. 12 FSIS has a Web site 13 that provides FOIA reports annually, disclosing summary
information on the number of initial FOIA requests received, their dispositions, and information
on appeals of denials of information. The Web site details the number of requests that were
denied and their FOIA exemption categories. For example, in 2004 and 2005, the most common
reasons for denying FSIS FOIA requests were (in descending frequency) exemptions 6, 4, 7c,
and 2 (see Box 2-1).
11
HACCP is a system for managing the safety of food through the analysis and control of biologic, chemical, and
physical hazards (NRC, 2010).
12
The Freedom of Information Act 5 USC § 552, As Amended By Public Law 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048. See
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm (accessed June 18, 2011).
13
See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FOIA/2004_FOIA_Report/index.asp (accessed June 20, 2011).
14
OCR for page 15
BOX 2-1
Types of Information that Cannot Be Released through the Freedom of Information Act
1. Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in
the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to
such Executive order;
2. Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
3. Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title),
provided that such statute
a. requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no
discretion on the issue, or
b. establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to
be withheld;
4. Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
considered privileged or confidential;
5. Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a
party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
6. Personnel and medical information, and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
7. Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the
production of such law enforcement records or information
a. could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
b. would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
c. could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy
d. could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
(including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution) which
furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or
information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a
criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security
intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source
e. would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of
the law or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;
8. Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf
of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial
institutions; or
9. Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
15
OCR for page 16
The second broad purpose of information release is to achieve specific public-policy
objectives. Such disclosure is a form of “targeted transparency”. Lessons can be drawn from a
wide variety of targeted-transparency policies that have been enacted in the last 3 decades (Fung
et al., 2007). The drivers that make disclosure or transparency effective or not are influenced by
the behavior of three sets of actors: the parties disclosing information either voluntarily or
because of mandated requirements (usually private businesses), the parties that use the disclosed
information (consumers, workers, investors, and academic researchers), and the parties that act
as the providers, aggregators, or conduits of information (such as the disclosers themselves, the
government, and third-party providers). Whether disclosure will ultimately improve the public
outcomes of concern depends in large part on the behavior of those three sets of parties, which in
turn depends on the specific problem under consideration.
Fung et al. (2007) describe the critical interactions between users and disclosers as
constituting an “action cycle”. 14 The action cycle is driven by how embedded the information is
in the decision-making processes of users and disclosers. As Figure 2-1 illustrates, the effect of a
targeted transparency policy (or information disclosure in general) depends first on how users
understand and integrate information into their decisions, which translate into changes in their
behavior (such as the products that they buy or the activities that they undertake). Actions taken
by users, in turn, have effects if they are perceived and then acted on by the disclosers. That
depends heavily on whether disclosers are able to discern changes caused by disclosure and how
much those changes alter business performance. 15 Finally, effectiveness is determined by the
degree to which changes in discloser behavior lead to improved social outcomes of initial
concern (as opposed to fostering gaming behavior or shifting of activities from those whose
disclosure is required to others that might have undesirable outcomes).
14
Dranove and Jin (2010) cover similar ground on the drivers of transparency effectiveness but bring in a great deal
of additional research (theoretical and empirical) published in the last 3–4 years. Although they classify the drivers
of the effects of quality disclosure in somewhat different terms that are rooted in more formal economic theory, they
identify similar explanatory factors that affect when disclosure policies (voluntary or mandatory) are most likely to
improve social outcomes.
15
This step of the action cycle is in many respects similar to firms’ expected response to any form of regulation—
that is, it is driven by the perceived benefits of responding relative to the costs of doing so. The difference is that
behavior change arises from a more complex chain of events under transparency policies than under traditional
standards-based regulation. See Levin et al. (2009) for a related discussion.
16
OCR for page 17
Figure 2-1 Transparency action cycle.
Source: Fung et al. (2007).
For transparency policies to be effective in changing regulated actors' behavior in the
direction specified by public policies, the empirical research summarized by Fung et al. (2007)
and Dranove and Jin (2010) points to a set of stringent conditions regarding how information is
presented, interpreted, and incorporated in decision-making. Not surprisingly, many transparency
policies fall short in that the various requirements of the action cycle fail to be met, either
because of poor policy design or because of the poor fit between the identified policy problem
and the use of disclosure as a tool to address it. Disclosure or transparency initiatives must be
crafted with a clear understanding of who the users of information are and how they will respond
to information; the profile of the disclosers, the markets in which they operate, and their
incentives to respond to the provision of more information about them; and the part that the
government and other third-party actors may play in providing the information or aggregating it
into a form most useful to consumers or other users.
TYPES OF DATA COLLECTED BY THE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION
SERVICE
Government agencies can disclose many types of data. For purposes of general overview,
the committee identified three general data categories:
Category 1: Data arising from the activities of agencies as part of their normal
enforcement and compliance efforts.
Category 2: Data arising from the outcomes of enforcement and compliance efforts
that have been interpreted by others for use by end users.
17
OCR for page 18
Category 3: Data collected by agencies from voluntary programs that are not
associated with normal enforcement and compliance efforts but are nonetheless
intended to provide information.
In general, decisions regarding public data release will depend on which data type is at
issue. Data are collected by FSIS in association with its mission to monitor the safety of
domestic and imported meat, poultry, and processed egg products and in the process of its
routine inspection, sampling or testing, and enforcement activities. FSIS uses its data as the basis
for determining the effectiveness of its oversight activities, primarily through the implementation
of Pathogen Reduction (PR) HACCP programs. In consultation with FSIS, the committee
identified two major FSIS data types to be considered for public release:
Inspection and enforcement data, which are collected by inspectors whenever a facility is
in operation. These data are collected to ensure that performance standards are being met
and that an establishment is controlling its processes in an appropriate manner. Data in
this category include NRs and Food Safety Administrative Actions.
Analytical data, also called sampling or testing data, which are collected in support of
verification and enforcement and include the incidence of key foodborne pathogens—
such as Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and L. monocytogenes. Data on residue sampling
and testing are also in this category (See Box 2-2 for more details on specific FSIS
pathogen sampling and testing programs that provide these data).
According to the broad data categories presented above, all the data that FSIS is
considering for establishment-specific public access arise from current activities of the agency as
parts of its normal enforcement and compliance efforts. That is, the data are being collected as
part of FSIS’s mandated inspection requirements. The vast majority of data are microbiological.
The data are detailed further in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 are examples of
establishment-specific microbiological data that FSIS is considering for public release.
Note that FSIS is not considering the release of establishment-specific data from baseline
studies, which constitute a form of microbiological sampling and testing intended to provide
background information to inform future regulations or to evaluate the efficacy of existing
regulation. Likewise, release of establishment-specific molecular typing data, which would
require collaboration with other food-safety agencies, is not being considered by FSIS. FSIS
recognizes that these data types might be considered in the future, but release of establishment-
specific data from baseline studies and molecular typing would pose a different set of issues; by
agency request, they were considered outside the committee’s deliberations.
18
OCR for page 19
Box 2-2
FSIS Pathogen Sampling and Testing Programs
Escherichia coli O157:H7 testing program. For regulatory purposes, FSIS initiated a microbiological
testing program in 1994 for detecting E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. The program’s original
objective was to stimulate industry testing and other actions to reduce the presence of E. coli 0157:H7 in
raw ground beef. At present, product sampling is among several activities conducted by FSIS for verifying
the effectiveness of HACCP systems. E. coli O157:H7 is classified as an adulterant by FSIS, so finding it
in a food product has specific regulatory consequences. If it is found, the implicated lot of ground beef
must be segregated and then sent to a renderer, a landfill, or an establishment that will cook it in
compliance with FSIS regulations. Data from this program include results of testing of verification samples
and followup samples (taken after a positive finding) taken from federal, retail, and import establishments.
Details of the program can be found at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Ground_Beef_E.Coli_Testing_Results/index.asp.
Salmonella testing programs. FSIS collects Salmonella data as part of a variety of programs
(http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Microbiology/index.asp), including its Salmonella verification testing
program for raw meat and poultry and its ready-to-eat meat (RTE) and poultry products testing program.
Although also pathogenic, Salmonella, unlike E. coli O157:H7, is not classified as an adulterant by FSIS.
Therefore, its presence in raw meat does not have lot-specific consequences but is used by FSIS as an
indicator of process control. Process control is evaluated by a processing establishment’s performance on
"Salmonella sets" or a series of Salmonella tests. The level of performance expected on a Salmonella set
is determined for different classes of FSIS-regulated products on the basis of the historical performance
of the industry related to those classes. Establishments that "pass" their Salmonella sets are viewed as
having their process under control; plants that fail are viewed as having processes that are out of control
and are placed under a greater degree of regulatory scrutiny with specific consequences, including a
review of their HACCP plans.
Listeria monocytogenes testing programs. Unlike E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, L. monocytogenes
is an important source of concern not in raw meat and poultry but rather in cooked meat and poultry
products that are processed in such a way that its growth is not inhibited. Finished products, food-contact
surfaces, and nonfood environments can all be tested for Listeria. Since 1983, FSIS has conducted
regulatory microbiological testing programs focused on L. monocytogenes contamination of RTE meat
and poultry products. Those programs have evolved; the most recent iterations include the RTE001
project (implemented in 2005), in which establishments are chosen for sampling based on the different
risk factors for L. monocytogenes contamination. In 2006, a second project, designated RLm, was
initiated on the basis of risk factors referred to as phase 2 of L. monocytogenes risk-based sampling.
RLm includes sampling of products, product-contact surfaces, and environmental surfaces in
combination with a comprehensive FSA. More details on the L. monocytogenes testing program can be
found at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Micro_Testing_RTE/index.asp.
19
OCR for page 20
USES AND USERS OF FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE DATA AND
DATA-SHARING EFFORTS
Some of the data collected by FSIS in establishment-specific form are already publicly
available as HTML or PDF documents accessible on the FSIS Web site. 16 That is the case, for
instance, for some data from verification and laboratory testing programs and for quarterly
enforcement-report data (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2). However, the vast majority of FSIS data
released to the public are in aggregated form. For example, summary data on FSIS slaughter
inspections (such as number of head slaughtered and live and dressed weights) are posted by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on its Web site.17 Monthly and annual slaughter-
volume data are provided in an aggregated form by class of animal, state, region, or type of
facility. Enforcement data are released in aggregated or summarized form in FSIS quarterly
enforcement reports. Import and export data collected by other federal agencies can also be
found on the FSIS Web site.
Although the data gathered by FSIS from plant inspections and product or environmental
testing are used as the basis for ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products
that go into general commerce, they serve—or might serve—other public purposes. For
instance, the data can be analyzed for trends and anomalies that might indicate current or
emerging food-safety problems. FSIS has a Data Analysis and Integration group (DAIG) in the
Office of Data Integration and Food Protection. 18 The DAIG’s primary role is to “coordinate . . .
the Agency's data collection, analysis, and integration activities across all program areas”. It is
“responsible for evaluating individual FSIS data streams, ensuring data analyses are consistent
and of high quality, and conducting data analyses to inform Agency decisions; in addition to
processing ad hoc and Freedom of Information Act data requests” (FSIS, 2010c).
The data can also be used in support of food-attribution estimates (estimates of the
proportion of cases of particular diseases that are associated with specific food products). Food
attribution is one of the objectives of the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network
(FoodNet), 19 a program that involves the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 state
health departments, FSIS, and the US Food and Drug Administration. The US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which procures meat for various
federal food and nutrition programs, uses FSIS data in its vendor-evaluation process to ensure
that it contracts only with establishments that can produce or process safe and wholesome
products (M. E. O’Connor, USDA AMS, Washington, DC, personal communication, June 2,
2011). The NASS uses data collected through the FSIS Electronic Animal Disposition Report
System (eADRS) for estimating total red-meat production in the United States; these data are
posted on its Web site. Production estimates for the various classes of livestock are used by
USDA and the livestock industry in determining future meat supplies and producer prices.
Estimates are also used by agricultural economists in their analysis and research programs
(NASS, 2009).
16
See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/science/Data_Collection_&_Reports/index.asp (accessed June 12, 2011).
17
See http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Livestock_Slaughter/index.asp (accessed June
14, 2011).
18
See http:// www.fsis.usda.gov/about/ODIFP/index.asp (accessed August 17, 2011).
19
See http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/ (accessed June 20, 2011).
20
OCR for page 21
The main users of FSIS data are consumer-advocacy groups, companies and industry
associations, the news media, and academics. Individual consumers may not be willing or able to
invest the time and effort necessary to analyze FSIS data, but consumer groups or others can
perform this function on their behalf and disseminate FSIS data and analyses of data to the
public. Consumer-advocacy groups have used FSIS data to educate consumers about the safety
of meat and poultry products and to inform public-policy decision-making (see CSPI, 2002;
FWW, 2006; FWW, 2010). In most cases reviewed by the committee, the information used for
those purposes arose from FOIA requests.
Food processors and retailers could potentially use FSIS data to inform sourcing
decisions and to manage risks associated with their supply chains. Industry groups might use
them in a similar manner and serve as collective agents in analyzing information for members
and potentially for education or even for self-regulation. Companies may seek to use the
information to determine how they rank relative to their peers and for competitive advantage.
Both the traditional news media and emerging Internet news organizations (such as
ProPublica) may draw on disaggregated data in developing stories about food safety. This source
of disaggregated data may be of particular importance given the contraction in the number of
traditional local news reporters.
Finally, academic researchers are an important user group. For example, FSIS data
obtained through FOIA have been used in peer-reviewed publications (see Nelson, 2009; White
and Moore, 2009) and meeting presentations (M. Ellis, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL,
personal communication, August 12, 2011). Academicians have perhaps the broadest interest in
establishment-specific data, analyzing it in ways to discern patterns, distributions, and data
complexity that would not be possible with aggregated data. Such analyses can support risk-
assessment efforts, epidemiological attribution, and public-policy decision-making.
THE ROLE OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE PUBLIC HEALTH
INFORMATION SYSTEM
With so many data being produced daily, it is important for FSIS to have a means of
archiving its data, preferably in a form that can be readily updated and is searchable. FSIS has
recently embarked on an effort to develop a data analytics system called the Public Health
Information System (PHIS) (FSIS, 2010a). The PHIS was created in response to a 2007
recommendation from the USDA Office of the Inspector General for the purpose of improving
FSIS’s inspection systems and developing an integrated data infrastructure (FSIS, 2010b).
The PHIS was designed to
Serve as a repository for data gathered from all domestic inspections and import
and export inspections.
Help FSIS to have a consistent, data-driven inspection, auditing, and scheduling
system.
21
OCR for page 22
Support predictive analytics by facilitating timely analysis of data from multiple
sources, thereby enhancing FSIS’s ability to determine trends, patterns, and
anomalies for the purpose of identifying emerging food-safety problems.
Facilitate more effective coordination within FSIS, between FSIS and other
federal agencies, and between FSIS and industry to improve investigations and
contaminant trace-back activities.
The PHIS is not accessible to the general public. It can currently be accessed by FSIS
personnel. FSIS plans to provide access, on a restricted basis, to other federal agencies (only
after authorization through a memorandum of understanding) and to private entities that have
been granted authorization by FSIS to view data about their own establishments. Data in the
PHIS that are accessible to other federal agencies and private establishments may also be
obtained by the public through FOIA requests. FSIS was clear that any public data-sharing
efforts would not be designed through direct interface with the PHIS but rather that data would
be accessible through export to a portal, such as data.gov.
In summary, FSIS releases large amounts of data, usually in aggregated form, in periodic
releases or as summaries. The question is whether the benefits of augmenting existing disclosure
to include establishment-specific data would outweigh the potential costs.
22
OCR for page 23
Table 2-1 FSIS Analytical (Sampling and Testing) Data That Are Under Consideration for Establishment-Specific Releasea
Data Type Description of Data Current Status of Public
Posting
Results of microbiological Data include Data posted only in
testing program for aggregated form
List of positive results on raw ground beef and raw ground beef
Escherichia coli O157:H7
components tested for E. coli O157:H7 in current year (sample source
given, not establishment name)
Results of analysis of raw ground beef and raw ground beef
component samples for E. coli O157:H7 and comparison with last
year's totals
Summary of microbiological results on raw ground beef products
analyzed for E. coli O157:H7 (summarized by year from 1994 to
present)
Results of RTE meat and Data include Data posted only in
poultry testing aggregated form
Percentage positive Salmonella tests of RTE meat and poultry
products, 1990–2000, 2001–2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (by
product)
Percentage positive L. monocytogenes tests of RTE meat and poultry
products, 1990–2000, 2001–2002; 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (by
product)
Percentage positive Salmonella tests of RTE meat and poultry, 2008
(by product type, not establishment-specific)
Percentage positive L. monocytogenes tests of RTE meat and poultry,
2008 (by product type, not establishment-specific)
Percentage positive Salmonella tests of RTE meat and poultry, 2009,
2010 (number of positives per number of samples taken; no data on
different product types)
23
OCR for page 24
Percentage positive L. monocytogenes tests of RTE meat and poultry,
2009, 2010 (number of positives per number of samples taken; no
data on different product types)
Data posted only in
Results of data analysis for The RLm risk-based sampling program covers sampling and testing of
aggregated form
routine Listeria products, product-contact surfaces, and environmental surfaces; data include
monocytogenes (RLm) risk-
Incidence and categorization of positive Lm samples from sampled
based sampling program
establishments
Types, sources, and pulsed-field gel electrophoretic subtyping of Lm
isolates from positive samples.
Descriptive summaries with respect to Lm control alternatives used by
the establishment, establishment HACCP size, establishment
production volume, FSIS district, geographic location of
establishment, season or month of sample collection, and trends in
percentage of positive results from April 2006 (program inception)
through 2008
Analysis of ALLRTE Data include Data posted only in
(random verification aggregated form
Incidence and categorization of Salmonella-positive samples from
sampling of all meat and
sampled establishments in the two programs
poultry products) and
RTE001 (sampling and Trends in percentage of positive results in 2005–2008
testing program based on
Types and sources of positive samples
establishment risk factors);
sampling results on Serogroups and serotypes of Salmonella isolates from positive
Salmonella spp. samples
Descriptive summaries with respect to establishment HACCP size,
establishment production volumes, Lm control alternatives used
by establishment, geographic location of establishment, and
month (and season) of sample collection
24
OCR for page 25
Results from Data includes Data posted only in
microbiological testing aggregated form
Percentage positive for Salmonella in pasteurized egg products,
program for pasteurized egg
1995–2009 (liquid, frozen, or dried egg products)
products
Results of FSIS pasteurized egg products testing program,
Salmonella serotypes, 1995–2009
Results from Salmonella Verification that establishments are meeting performance standards for Monthly reporting is
verification testing program Salmonella; data include establishment-specific;
for raw meat and poultry quarterly and annual reports
Monthly reports for Category 3 young chicken (broiler)
are posted only in aggregated
establishments; Category 3 establishments are those which have
form
results from most recent completed sample set that exceed the
standard for Salmonella in young chickens
Quarterly progress report on Salmonella testing of selected raw meat
and poultry products (by product class, establishment size, or type of
establishment)
Annual progress report on Salmonella testing of raw meat and poultry
products, 1998–2010; listed by product class and PR/HACCP
establishment size
Serotyping of salmonellae Serotype profile of Salmonella isolates from meat and poultry products, Data posted only in
from meat and poultry annual reports (1998–2010) and quarterly reports aggregated form
products
Residue violators alert list Residue violators repeat list (Part I) contains names of persons or Data posted on a per-
establishments responsible for having more than one residue (drug, pesticide, establishment basis
or other chemical) violation in animals presented at slaughter and tissue,
residue, value, and tolerance (to assist FSIS inspection personnel)
25
OCR for page 26
Residue violators repeat list (Part II) contains names of producers (listed by
state) responsible for having more than one residue (drug, pesticide, or other
chemical) violation in animals presented at slaughter (for livestock markets
and establishments)
Dioxin and dioxin-like Information gathered through periodic surveys for dioxins, furans, and dioxin- Data posted only in
chemicals in the US like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); data include toxic equivalent values aggregated form
domestic meat and poultry for dioxins and furans and for dioxin-like PCBs; states where animals were
supply produced are listed for each sample (market hogs, steer or heifer, young
chicken, and young turkey)
Sampling plan (number of samples collected), products analyzed in Data not establishment-
FSIS testing results on
laboratory, and laboratory test results, 2009 specific
melamine in retail meat and
poultry
a
Years are calendar years.
26
OCR for page 27
Table 2-2 FSIS Inspection and Enforcement Data That Are Under Consideration for Establishment-Specific Releasea
Data Type Description of Data Current Status of Public
Posting
Noncompliance records and
Quarterly enforcement Noncompliance records and appeals
appeals; product-control actions
reports (1998–2011)
Port of entry re-inspection
are aggregated in quarterly
enforcement reports
Product control actions (condemnations and detentions, food-recall
announcements ) Notices of prohibited activity,
administrative actions, civil
Notices of prohibited activity (activities not given)
actions, and criminal actions are
Administrative actions (basis of action given)
all posted in establishment-
specific form
Civil actions (action summary provided)
Criminal actions (action summary provided)
Names of countries and products
Eligible countries, List of eligible countries and types of meat, poultry, or egg products
given
products, and certified eligible for export to the United States.
establishments
Names of eligible establishments
List of foreign establishments certified to export meat, poultry, or egg
given by country
products to United States
Names of audited establishments
Foreign audit reports: comprehensive audits of foreign-country inspection
given by country
systems
FSIS import data Volume of imported meat, poultry, and egg products presented for re-inspection by Weight data given by country
FSIS at port of entry, 2005–2010
a
Years are calendar years.
27
OCR for page 28
Table 2-3 Example of Establishment-Specific E. coli O157:H7 Data Under Consideration for Public Posting by FSIS
Establishment Establishment Sampling Collect ion Product
Form Id Number Namea Sample Source Name Project Date Name Analysis Result
300000001 M1 Establishment 1 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/21/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef patties
300000002 M2 Establishment 2 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/21/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000003 M3 Establishment 3 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000004 M4 Establishment 4 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000005 M5 Establishment 5 Product-Raw-Intact-Beef MT50 10/24/11 Beef E. coli O157:H7 Positive
0:00 trimmings
300000006 M6 Establishment 6 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Raw E. coli O157:H7 Positive
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 ground
Nonintact-Beef beef
300000007 M7 Establishment 7 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Coarse E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 ground
Nonintact-Beef beef
300000008 M8 Establishment 8 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000009 M9 Establishment 9 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
28
OCR for page 29
300000010 M10 Establishment 10 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000011 M11 Establishment 11 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef patties
300000012 M12 Establishment 12 Product-Raw-Intact-Beef MT50 10/24/11 Beef E. coli O157:H7 Negative
0:00 trimmings
300000013 M13 Establishment 13 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
300000014 M14 Establishment 14 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43 10/24/11 Ground E. coli O157:H7 Negative
Comminuted or Otherwise 0:00 beef
Nonintact-Beef
a
Actual establishment names will appear in this column when FSIS posts the data.
29
OCR for page 30
Table 2-4 Example of Establishment-Specific Salmonella Data Under Consideration for Public Posting by FSIS
Establishment Establishment Sampling Collect ion Product
Form Id Number Namea Sample Source Name Project Date Name Analysis Result
300000015 M16 Establishment 16 Product-RTE-Other RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Brisket Salmonella Negative
Fully Cooked, Not
Sliced-Beef
300000016 M17 Establishment 17 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Chili Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage
Products-Combination
species
300000017 M18 Establishment 18 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Sausage Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage
Products-Pork
300000018 M19 Establishment 19 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Wieners Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Hot Dog
Products-Combination
species
300000019 M20 Establishment 20 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000020 M21 Establishment 21 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Beef Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage salami
Products-Beef
300000021 M22 Establishment 22 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000022 M23 Establishment 23 Product-Raw-Ground, HC01_GB 10/26/11 0:00 Raw Salmonella Positive
Comminuted or ground
30
OCR for page 31
Otherwise Nonintact- veal
Beef
300000023 M24 Establishment 24 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000024 M25 Establishment 25 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000025 M26 Establishment 26 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000026 M27 Establishment 27 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Caesar Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Meat+Nonmeat wrap
Multicomponent-
Chicken
300000027 M28 Establishment 28 Product-RTE-Other ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Cooked Salmonella Negative
Fully Cooked, Not salami
Sliced-Combination
species
300000028 M29 Establishment 29 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000029 M30 Establishment 30 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Sausage Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage
Products-Pork
300000030 M31 Establishment 31 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Wieners Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Hot Dog
31
OCR for page 32
Products-Turkey
300000031 M32 Establishment 32 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Cooked Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Meat+Nonmeat beef patty
Multicomponent-Beef
300000032 M33 Establishment 33 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Smoked Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage sausage
Products-Combination
species
300000033 M34 Establishment 34 Product-RTE RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Patties Salmonella Negative
300000034 M35 Establishment 35 Product-RTE-Fully ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Sausage Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage gravy
Products-Pork
300000035 M36 Establishment 36 Product-RTE ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Beef chili Salmonella Negative
300000036 M37 Establishment 37 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000037 M38 Establishment 38 Product-RTE-Other ALLRTE 10/26/11 0:00 Meatballs Salmonella Negative
Fully Cooked, Not
Sliced-Combination
species
300000038 M39 Establishment 39 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000039 M40 Establishment 40 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Smoked Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Sausage sausage
Products-Combination
species
32
OCR for page 33
300000040 M41 Establishment 41 Product-RTE-Other RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Canadian Salmonella Negative
Fully Cooked, Not bacon
Sliced-Pork
300000042 M43 Establishment 43 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Beef Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Hot Dog frankfurters
Products-Beef
300000043 M44 Establishment 44 Product-RTE-Fully RTE001 10/26/11 0:00 Pork and Salmonella Negative
Cooked, Hot Dog beef
Products-Combination frankfurters
species
300000044 M45 Establishment 45 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000045 M46 Establishment 46 Product-Raw-Ground, HC01_GB 10/26/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
300000046 M47 Establishment 47 Product-Raw-Ground, MT43S 10/27/11 0:00 Ground Salmonella Negative
Comminuted or beef
Otherwise Nonintact-
Beef
a
Actual establishment names will appear in this column when FSIS posts the data.
33
OCR for page 34
REFERENCES
CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). 2002. Field Guide to Safer Turkeys. Available
at http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/turkeyguide-black_white.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.
Dranove, D., and G.Z. Jin. 2010. Quality disclosure and certification: Theory and practice.
Journal of Economic Literature 48(4):935-963.
FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service). 2010a. Food Safety and Inspection Service’s Public
Health Information System: Improving the Safety of Imported and Exported Meat,
Poultry, and Processed Egg Products. Available at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/FSIS_PHIS_Improving_the_Safety_of_Imports_&_Expor
ts.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2011
FSIS. 2010b. Public Health Information System: An Overview for Stakeholders. Available at
www.fsis.usda.gov/PPT/PHIS_Stakeholder_Briefing.ppt. Accessed May 30, 2011.
FSIS. 2010c. Office of Data Integration and Food Protection. Available at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/ODIFP/index.asp#intro. Accessed October 31,
2011.
FWW (Food and Water Watch). 2006. Foul Fowl: An Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in
Broiler Chickens, July 2006. Available at
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/salmonella%20report%20final%20.pdf.
Accessed June 10, 2011.
FWW. 2010. Poison Free Poultry: Why Arsenic Doesn’t Belong in Chicken Feed October 2010.
Available at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/tools-and-resources/poison-free-
poultry/. Accessed June 10, 2011.
Fung, A., Graham, M., and D. Weil. 2007. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of
Transparency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, D., Peck, J., and Y. Lixin. 2009. Quality Disclosure and Competition. Journal of
Industrial Economics 57(1):167-196.
NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2009. Available at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Livestock_Slaughter/index.
asp. Accessed June 21, 2011.
National Research Council (NRC). 2010. An Evaluation of the Food Safety Requirements of the
Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program. Available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13069. Accessed June 20, 2011.
Nelson, M.L. 2009. Utilization and application of wet potato processing coproducts for finishing
cattle. Available at http://jas.fass.org/content/88/13_electronic_suppl/E133.full.pdf.
Accessed August 15, 2011.
White, T.L., and D.A. Moore. 2009. Reasons for whole carcass condemnations of cattle in the
United States and implications for producer education and veterinary intervention.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 235(8):937-941.
34
