Source: Rita Jane Gabbett, MEATINGPLACE.COM, 4/9/10

Bob Hibbert is an attorney at K&L Gates in Washington, D.C., who specializes in food safety regulation and works as a consultant to individual processors and industry groups such as the Eastern Meat Packers Association.

Hibbert has attended recent meetings with industry leaders and officials at USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service about the recently proposed changes to the agency's guidance that would insist on more in-plant validation of both critical control points (CCPs) in HACCP plans and prerequisite programs. He shared his views on the proposals with Meatingplace.

The industry has reacted strongly to proposed in-plant validation of HACCP plan CCPs. What is your take?

I think the document is troubling because it clearly implies that companies are going to have to do a lot of potentially very expensive micro testing to justify a wide-range of variations in products and processes. A small plant making a wide variety of items could be hit with some prohibitive burdens.

I see this as a fundamental change in policy, though FSIS does not. To their credit, they circulated it informally first and are giving plenty of opportunity for input before it is implemented. They consider the proposals "significant guidance," so even after this current round of feedback the proposals will be published in the Federal Register for further comment. They are calling this guidance as opposed to a rule.

In the meetings you have attended, how have FSIS officials responded to concerns about overly burdening small processors?

In broad terms, they say they don't think that is the case. They are asking for comments to be submitted, rather than engaging in a debate during these meetings.

Do you think these new guidelines would make food safer?

That's a good question. I disagree with their basic approach. I think we are at risk of getting stuck in theory when we should be focused on reality. One thing that is not clear is this: What is the problem the agency is trying to address? What specific problems has this alleged lack of proper validation caused? If there is a problem, it should be identified and addressed. If there is a particular product category or process that has been identified as problematic, we could get into a lot of good communication about how to address it. But when it is so vague and general and creates all this confusion, I don't think that is a productive approach.

What about the proposed guidance on validating prerequisite programs?

I think that portion of the proposal is a potential policy change. Currently, by definition, prerequisite programs are not part of HACCP. In this new document, however, FSIS is implying that as far as it is concerned, they are part of HACCP. I don't think that is supported by past HACCP history, which has acknowledged the value of prerequisite programs and established them as separate from HACCP. This attempts to break down that wall in ways that could prove to be difficult.

What have you observed about the meat processing industry's reaction?

There has been a strong reaction and it's really been more of an independent groundswell. People are taking the initiative to respond; they haven't had to be stirred up.

I think the good news is that there has been a lot of discussion and cooperation and dialog. There is a lot of unified concern among industry groups and in fairness to FSIS, [the agency is] going to listen carefully to what people have to say. There may not even be unanimity within FSIS on what these proposals are trying to do.

Who, then, is pushing for these changes?

The proposals come from FSIS, but they come within the context of the current administration, the Food Safety Working Group and the notion that food safety needs to be more proactive, more about preventative systems than recalls. No one can disagree with that.

In a recent Meatingplace interview, Kansas State professor and food safety expert James Marsden suggested this push isn't just coming from the administration, but also from meat processors' foodservice and retail customers. Do you agree?

I think Jim is right. I think that (customer viewpoint) is continuing to evolve. It is an evolution rather than a sea change.

Do you have an alternative to what FSIS is proposing?

I think a more targeted approach to the problem would be more productive. It would be better if FSIS could identify concrete issues of concern with products or processes — something tangible that could be addressed.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.