Source:  Tom Johnston, MEATINGPLACE.COM, 6/14/10

Draft guidance issued by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service for in-plant HACCP validation should be rewritten entirely because it does not make clear what meat processors must do to comply.

So said Phil Kimball, executive director of the North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP), today in Washington at the first of three meetings FSIS is holding to gather input on the document. Causing particular confusion, he said in a prepared statement, is FSIS' fact sheet on validation contradicts the draft guidance document in certain sections.

"For instance, the guidance document says that establishments would need to provide support in instances where they believe microbiological testing data is not needed to demonstrate effectiveness of the HACCP system, but the fact sheet says that if a plant can show it can meet specified operational parameters, it has done everything it needs to do to validate its HACCP plan," Kimball said.

Phil Derfler, assistant administrator of FSIS'Office of Policy and Program Development, reiterated that validation already is required in HACCP regulations; FSIS is not imposing any new requirements, but asking plant operators to be able to demonstrate that their HACCP plans are working. 

More testing?

However, NAMP and other industry groups representing small and very small meat processors worry, among other things, that they will be required to do more microbiological testing at costs they cannot afford.

Earlier this month Jay Wenther, executive director of the American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP), wrote in a note to members that USDA's assurance that there will be no new regulations "all sounds great on the surface, but some in the meat industry understand how quickly 'guidelines' become [FSIS] expectations and in the absence of any other supporting documents…microbial sampling data may be the only data that will satisfy those expectations."

Comments on the preliminary draft are due June 19. FSIS will review the comments and then announce an updated draft document in the Federal Register in July for a second round of comments. As part of the second comment period, FSIS will hold two additional public meetings.

Derfler noted in his presentation that FSIS has received some 2,000 comments on the guidance. A significant rewrite of the document is likely, he said.