Petition to USDA: No US Import of Canadian Beef

USDA Petition Against Risky Canadian Meat
Click on title above to see Petition

On January 28, 2008, Food & Water Watch submitted a petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service urging the agency to remove Canada from the list of countries eligible to export meat and poultry products to the United States.


CITIZEN PETITION BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE


Mr. Alfred Almanza, Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service
United States Department of Agriculture
331-E Jamie L. Whitten Building
12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW
Washington, DC 20250




HAND DELIVERED



PETITION TO REMOVE CANADA AS A COUNTRY ELIGIBLE TO EXPORT MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS UNDER 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b)

Dear Administrator Almanza,

On behalf of the non–profit consumer organization, Food & Water Watch, I respectfully submit this petition, pursuant the Federal Meat Inspection Act as amended,1 the Poultry Products Inspection Act as amended,2 the Right to Petition Government Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,3 the Administrative Procedure Act,4 and USDA’s implementing regulations,5 for a rule issued by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to remove Canada as a country that is eligible to export meat and poultry products to the United States under 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b) (2006). Food & Water Watch is requesting this action because of the extensive evidence that the Canadian inspection system does not assure compliance with requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and other requirements of the FMIA and PPIA and regulations applicable to official establishments in the United States, and that reliance cannot be placed upon Canada’s certificates of eligibility. As a consequence, Canadian meat and poultry processors are exporting products to the United States that may be harmful to U.S. consumers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not able to take effective action to prevent those products from entering U.S. commerce.



I. Statement of the LawUnder the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) 6 and Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) 7 and regulations promulgated under these laws, only products prepared in establishments that are certified by a foreign country as meeting equivalent standards and requirements as official establishments in the United States are eligible for importation into the United States. When the Administrator of FSIS determines that a foreign nation’s system of meat inspection for establishments exporting to the United States ensures such requirements and standards are met, the country is listed under 9 C.F.R. § 327.2 (b) and the products prepared in such establishments are eligible for importation. The acceptability of a foreign meat inspection system is based on FSIS’ determination, under § 327.2 (a)(2)(i), that the country’s inspection system provide standards equivalent to those of the Federal system of meat inspection in the United States with respect to:

Organizational structure and staffing, so as to insure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all establishments throughout the system at which products are prepared for export to the United States;
Ultimate control and supervision by the national government over the official activities of all employees or licensees of the system;
The assignment of competent, qualified inspectors;
Authority and responsibility of national inspection officials to enforce the requisite laws and regulations governing meat inspection and to certify or refuse to certify products intended for export;
Adequate administrative and technical support;
The inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards applied to products produced in the United States;
Other requirements of adequate inspection service as required by the regulations in this subchapter.

Further, under § 327.2 (a)(2)(ii), the foreign government must maintain a food inspection system equivalent to the system of meat inspection organized and maintained in the United States with respect to:

Ante–mortem inspection of animals for slaughter and inspection of methods of slaughtering and handling in connection with slaughtering which shall be performed by veterinarians or by other employees or licensees of the system under the direct supervision of the veterinarians;
Post–mortem inspection of carcasses and parts thereof at time of slaughter, performed by veterinarians or other employees or licensees of the system under the direct supervision of veterinarians;
Official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment;
Direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering and preparation of product, by the assignment of inspectors to establishments certified [under this section], to assure that adulterated or misbranded product is not prepared for export to the United States;
Complete separation of establishments certified [under this section] from establishments not certified and the maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout all certified establishments;
Requirements for sanitation at certified establishments and for sanitary handling of product;
Official controls over condemned material until destroyed or removed and thereafter excluded from the establishment;
A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, as set forth in part 417 of this chapter;
Other matters for which requirements are contained in the Act or regulations in this subchapter.


Specific regulations under the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 9 C.F.R. § 381.196 (a)(2)(i)-(ii), provide nearly verbatim criteria for evaluating a foreign country’s inspection system for poultry products. Countries meeting these requirements for poultry are listed under 9 C.F.R. § 381.196 (b).

The Administrator of FSIS may withdraw a §§ 327.2 (b) and/or 381.196 (b) listing of any foreign country when the Administrator determines that the foreign country’s system of meat or poultry product inspection “does not assure compliance with requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and other requirements” of the FMIA and PPIA and regulations applicable to official establishments in the United States, that reliance cannot be placed upon certificates from authorities of such foreign country, or that, for lack of current information, such foreign country should be required to reestablish its eligibility for listing.8




II. Background on Canada’s Exports of Meat and Poultry ProductsCanada is the largest exporter of meat and poultry products to the United States. During FY 2006, it exported 1,783,882,689 pounds of meat and poultry products to the United States9 that accounted for 45.9 percent of all imported meat and poultry products into the United States.10 There are currently 462 meat and poultry plants in Canada that are certified to export their products to the United States.11

Canada has been deemed to have a food safety system that is equivalent to that of the United States. It has been listed under 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b) and its food establishments are eligible to export meat and poultry products to the United States.

As it does with all countries that are eligible to export meat and poultry products, FSIS has conducted annual audits of a selected number of Canadian food establishments that are eligible to export to the United States.13

As discussed more fully below, FSIS auditors have found repeated violations of U.S. standards and requirements in their annual visits. It has also required multiple visits to Canada in some years to verify that U.S. standards were being met at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.15 While some Canadian food establishments have been delisted, FSIS has failed to delist the country as eligible for export to the United States, thus providing the need for this petition.



III. Statement of the Grounds for Withdrawing Canada as a Country Listed 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b) as Eligible to Export to the United States.As discussed in detail below, a December 2005 USDA Inspector General’s audit of Canada’s meat and poultry inspection system found that Canadian inspection officials do not enforce requirements or maintain inspection intensity at levels equivalent to those FSIS applies, or is required to apply, to official establishments in the United States. In addition, FSIS audits of Canadian establishments in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 show numerous and repeated failures both in terms of establishments’ adherence to sanitation and food safety requirements, as well as the inspection system’s enforcement of those requirements. Further, FSIS has instituted two large recalls in 2007 of meat and poultry products produced in Canada.

Based on all of this information, the Administrator can only conclude that Canada’s system of meat and poultry inspection does not assure compliance with the requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and other requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act and corresponding regulations applicable to official establishments in the United States. Furthermore, reliance cannot be placed upon Canada’s certificate of eligibility. Therefore, the Administrator must withdraw Canada from the list of countries eligible to export to the United States under 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b). The failure to delist Canada would be contrary to the FMIA and PPIA. The failure to delist Canada would also be arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, and thus contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act.16



A. A December 2005 USDA Inspector General’s Audit Report on Canada’s meat and poultry inspection system found that Canadian inspection officials do not enforce requirements or maintain inspection intensity at levels equivalent to those FSIS applies, or is required to apply, to official establishments in the United States.


The chronic food safety issues that FSIS auditors have found in Canadian food establishments prompted the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct its own audit of the Canadian food safety system and the processes FSIS used to determine equivalence with Canada. The OIG found the following:

. . . [I]n July 2003, FSIS identified that Canadian inspection officials were not enforcing certain pathogen reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system regulations. These same types of concerns were identified again in June 2005, almost 2 years later.

Timely actions were not taken because FSIS does not have protocols or guidelines for evaluating deficiencies in a country’s inspection system that could jeopardize a country’s overall equivalence determination…

In July 2003, as part of an onsite review, FSIS identified serious concerns with the Canadian inspection system. These concerns included the insufficient implementation of sanitation controls and HACCP requirements by establishments and the lack of enforcement in these areas by Canadian inspection officials.

Based on these concerns, FSIS proposed an enforcement review in 2004. (Enforcement reviews can lead to a determination that a country’s system is not equivalent to U.S. standards and, thus, not eligible to export to the United States). The proposed 2004 enforcement review was not conducted and FSIS officials did not reassess Canada’s implementation and enforcement of sanitation controls and HAACP requirements until almost 2 years later. When FSIS officials finally returned to Canada in May 2005, they continued to find the same types of deficiencies they had found in 2003.

FSIS should analyze the deficiencies identified in the 2003 and 2005 reviews to determine whether immediate actions are needed to address concerns regarding public health and if additional enforcement measures are needed.

FSIS’ analysis of the regulations governing the Canadian inspection system identified two areas that may not be equivalent to the United States inspection system. FSIS found that Canadian policy allowed less than daily inspection coverage in processing establishments. By contrast, FSIS has a long established history of requiring the presence of an inspector in a U.S. processing establishment at least once per shift per day. FSIS also identified differences in the testing performed for Listeria monocytogenes. Canadian inspection officials require establishments to perform risk-based environmental sampling, as opposed to the finished product sampling required by FSIS.17



B. FSIS audits of Canadian establishments in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 show numerous and repeated failures both in terms of establishments’ adherence to sanitation and food safety requirements, as well as the inspection system’s enforcement of those requirements.


According to FSIS audits in 2003,18 Canadian establishments repeatedly failed to adhere to sanitation and food safety requirements and the Canadian inspection officials failed to enforce these requirements:

In 22 of the 37 establishments visited, FSIS officials found that the Canadian inspection system did not have adequate sanitation controls. FSIS officials found that Canadian establishments did not ensure sanitation controls were adequately implemented or evaluated for effectiveness. FSIS also found that the establishments did not take corrective actions when sanitation controls failed to prevent direct product contamination or adulteration and did not maintain daily records of these activities.
FSIS officials found that Canadian inspection officials did not implement certain HACCP requirements in 27 of the 37 establishments. FSIS found that Canadian establishments were deficient in validating their HACCP plans, documenting corrective actions, and reassessing the adequacy of the plans.
As part of the review of specific establishments, FSIS evaluated whether Canadian inspection officials adequately enforced FSIS requirements. FSIS officials found that the Canadian inspection system did not have adequate controls to ensure FSIS requirements were enforced. FSIS officials identified deficiencies in the areas of sanitation controls and HACCP requirements that had not been previously noted by Canadian inspection officials. This condition occurred in 32 of the 37 establishments visited by FSIS officials.
Of the 37 establishments visited, 28 were establishments that produced processed products. FSIS officials found that Canadian inspection officials provided less than daily inspection at 10 of the 28 processing establishments visited.



Audits in 2005 demonstrated a similar pattern of abuses:19

In 21 of the 35 establishments, FSIS officials found that the Canadian inspection system did not have adequate sanitation controls. FSIS continued to find that Canadian establishments did not ensure sanitation controls were adequately implemented or evaluated for effectiveness. In addition, the establishments did not take corrective actions when sanitation controls failed to prevent direct product contamination or adulteration and did not maintain daily records of these activities.
FSIS officials found that Canadian inspection officials did not implement certain HACCP requirements in 19 of the 35 establishments. FSIS again found that Canadian establishments were deficient in validating their HACCP plans, documenting corrective actions, and reassessing the adequacy of the plans.
As part of the review of specific establishments, FSIS again evaluated whether Canadian inspection officials adequately enforced FSIS requirements. FSIS officials found that the Canadian inspection system did not have adequate controls to ensure FSIS requirements were enforced. FSIS officials identified deficiencies in the areas of sanitation controls and HACCP requirements that had not been previously noted by Canadian inspection officials. This condition occurred in 29 of the 35 establishments visited by FSIS officials.

Later that year, the USDA OIG notified FSIS that it wanted a complete review of Canadian processing plants that exported to the United States on the issue of daily inspection. The OIG found the following:

On July 29, 2005, we issued a management alert to FSIS which identified a condition that warranted the agency’s immediate attention. We reported that FSIS had not taken timely action to resolve the agency’s July 2003 finding that Canada does not require daily inspection coverage at processing establishments that export product to the United States. Specifically, the agency identified 10 processing establishments that received less than daily inspection and subsequently Canada reported 252 of its processing establishments did not receive daily inspection coverage during all processing shifts. Almost 700 million pounds of product entered U.S. commerce from these 252 establishments from January 1, 2003 through May 31, 2005. In FSIS’ information system, the products were categorized as cuts and trimmings of raw product as well as products with additional processing from pork, veal, beef, poultry, and lamb.20


In August 2005, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) did change its Animal Hygiene Regulations as they applied to exports to the United States that explicitly required daily inspection of processing establishments.21 However, FSIS agreed to permit Canada to conduct a study to prove that less-than-daily inspection in processing was equivalent to the U.S. inspection system. That study was to have been completed by November 2007. According to FSIS officials, CFIA is still evaluating the data it received from the study.22

In October 2005, FSIS dispatched an audit team to Canada to conduct a paper review of the new daily inspection procedures –– FSIS did not conduct in-plant audits to verify whether the new inspection procedures had actually been implemented.

In 2006 audits by FSIS,23 the agency found that establishments were not implementing their Standard Sanitation Operating Procedures (SSOPs), Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS), or HACCP plans, and were not adequately testing for Salmonella:

In 10 of 21 establishments audited, there were deficiencies in the implementation of the Standard Sanitation Operating Procedures. For example, there was improper documentation of daily records for SSOP requirements; improper implementation of SSOPs in 5 establishments; no corrective action taken when SSOP failed to prevent direct product contamination in one establishment; and no reference to pre-operational sanitation in the SSOP prerequisite program, although pre-operational sanitation was occurring at one establishment.
Nineteen of the 21 establishments had deficiencies in the implementation of Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS). The violations found included unsanitary conditions such as insects found in two empty containers used for rework of product and product residue found in bins ready for use.
Fifteen of the 21 establishments had deficiencies in the implementation, corrective actions, verification and/or recordkeeping parts of HAACP. The violations found included inadequate recordkeeping documenting the written HACCP plan, the monitoring of the critical control points, and dates and times of specific occurrences in 11 establishments; in seven establishments, verification and validation of the HACCP plants were not performed properly; in four establishments, the corrective action was not written in the HACCP plan; in three establishments, the HACCP plan was not adequately reassessed; in two establishments, on-going monitoring of the HACCP plan was not performed properly.
Laboratories were using only 25 grams of ready–to–eat products in tests for Salmonella instead of 325 grams. FSIS auditors critiqued the lack of oversight exercised by CFIA over the private laboratories they retained to conduct microbial testing.

No establishments were recommended for delistment.

In August 2007, the USDA OIG issued an audit report on egg processing inspection. Its findings included:

(W)e found that while FSIS had identified deficiencies in 2003 with Canada’s controls over egg product processing plants that exported to the United States, no follow up visits had been made since then to verify that corrective actions had been implemented. FSIS officials gave greater priority to the review of meat and poultry establishments, since processed egg products were considered to pose less of a health risk than some meat products due to the use of the pasteurization process. In their last visit, FSIS reviewers found that two Canadian egg product processing plants broke and used eggs that were leaking or had foreign material on their shells.24


As a result of the OIG report, FSIS conducted audits of four Canadian egg products processing facilities in addition to twenty meat and poultry establishments.

On this visit, one Canadian establishment was recommended for delistment and six received Notices of Intent to Delist.

These were the deficiencies that were found in the 2007 audit:

There was no Canadian method for Salmonella analysis of meat and poultry products that had been deemed equivalent by the United States. Specifically, the problem of the sample size cited in the 2006 audit had not been corrected; only 25 grams of product was being sent in for laboratory analysis while the U.S. standard is 325 grams. As the FSIS audit stated: “Many of the establishments did not understand that they must make that specific request to satisfy U.S. requirements.”
Seventeen of 20 slaughter and/or processing establishments had deficiencies in the implementation, maintenance, corrective actions, and/or recordkeeping requirements of the Standard Sanitation Operating Procedures (SSOPs). The problems discovered included descriptions of non-compliances, causes, corrective actions, and preventive measures were either missing or not written in sufficient detail for the establishments’ management or for CFIA personnel to verify the effectiveness of the actions; records were not completed in the manner described in the HACCP plans, including times and temperatures; the sanitation prerequisite programs did not address the cleaning and monitoring of some areas of the establishments; condensate was present in various rooms and was observed dripping on personnel, boxes, product and/or product contact surfaces; positioning of product presented a variety of cross-contamination scenarios; product handling practices also led to cross-contamination; heavy dust and protein residues were found on fans that led directly into an RTE slicing room; residue from previous day’s production was found on food contact areas; pre-operational sanitation monitoring by one establishment was done on slaughter days only and not on days when there was only processing performed; sanitation records revealed repetitive deficiencies with either no preventive measures or preventive measures were ineffective; and hooks for edible product were not maintained in a sanitary manner.
Nineteen of the 20 slaughter and/or processing establishments had deficiencies in Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS). Two of the four egg products processing facilities had SPS deficiencies. The problems found with SPS included: inedible containers were observed coming into contact with personnel working with edible product, edible product, edible product containers, and/or food contact areas; condensate was present in processing rooms, coolers, freezers; there was rust and corrosion on many pieces of equipment and overhead structures; there was no floor drain in the area of the sticker in a hog plant, which resulted in the operator standing on support pads in a pool of water and blood; establishment of pre-requisite programs for water and/or ice were not written or followed in the manner specified in the CFIA Manual of Procedures; walls, floors, ceilings, and/or overhead structures were in poor repair; exposed insulation in processing room and cooler locations; freezers and storage areas were not maintained in sanitary manner; excessive shell fragments were observed in breaking machines and collection pots; and excessive shell fragments were also observed past the filtering system in the performance of the pour test.
Thirteen of the 20 slaughter/processing/cold storage establishments audited had deficiencies in the implementation of HACCP requirements. Most involved deficiencies in recordkeeping. One of the egg processing facilities had a HACCP deficiency –– calibration of equipment. Examples of the HACCP deficiencies included descriptions of deviations, corrective actions, and preventive measures were either missing or not written in sufficient detail for the establishments’ management or for CFIA personnel to verify the effectiveness of the actions; CCP monitoring and verification records had missing times, missing initials, missing temperatures, and entries that were not actual measured values; HACCP plans had poorly described hazards which led to critical limits, monitoring procedures, corrective actions, preventive measures, and verification procedures that did not follow in a logical manner or address the hazard; pre-shipment reviews were not conducted for all products.
Three of the nine slaughter facilities had deficiencies in their generic E.coli testing program. The problems found included no action taken when total coliform and E. coli counts exceeded the acceptable limits and the recording program for E. coli results was not functioning properly.
One of the nine slaughter facilities never received its residue sampling schedule from CFIA for FY 2006–2007 and no meat was sampled for chemical residues during that time period.
Two establishments that produced both single and multiple species ground products did not have species identification sampling scheduled for them by CFIA.
The FSIS auditor made the following observation: “Inspection system controls at all levels were not fully developed and implemented. There were many instances of deficiencies both in the documentation reviews and in the operations audits that should have been addressed prior to the FSIS audit. Some inspection personnel were not well-trained in the performance of their inspection tasks. Inspection personnel were not conducting pre–operational sanitation inspection verification or were not conducting it at the frequency required.” 26


While all establishments audited were receiving at least daily visits by CFIA inspection personnel, one establishment –– Eastern Protein Foods Limited (Canadian Establishment Number 203) –– did not appear to be inspected from March 2 through May 3, 2007 for the second shift of production. In addition, for a three month period, CFIA inspection personnel did not appear to be conducting on-site pre-operational sanitation verification which is required to be performed at least twice monthly. Instead, CFIA inspection personnel were only conducting record reviews at this establishment.27

FSIS recently sent another audit team to look at the one plant that had been delisted as a result of this audit and the six that had received Notices of the Intent to Delist. According to FSIS officials, all of these plants corrected their deficiencies and continue to export to the United States.28



C. FSIS instituted two large recalls in 2007 of meat and poultry products produced in Canada.

a. Topps Meat Company, LLC Recall of Ground Beef Products

On September 25, 2007, FSIS announced a voluntary recall for 331,582 pounds of frozen ground beef products by the Topps Meat Company, LLC of Elizabeth, New Jersey.29 The recall was eventually expanded to 21.7 million pounds of frozen ground beef products on September 29, 2007.30 The meat was contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7. This recall made it the fifth largest in U.S. history.31 Because of the magnitude of the recall, Topps Meat Company was forced to shutter its doors and declare bankruptcy.32 FSIS announced on October 26, 2007 that the likely source of the contamination was beef trim that Topps had imported from Canadian Establishment Number 630, Ranchers Beef, Ltd. Of Balzac, Alberta that itself had shut down operations in August 2007.33

As part of the investigation, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that there were 40 illnesses with 21 known hospitalizations in eight states. In Canada, the CFIA reported that there were 45 illnesses that seemed to be tied to meat produced by Ranchers Beef that included eleven hospitalizations and one death.34 After its initial announcement, CFIA was forced to issue six additional press releases that expanded the scope of the recall of meat that was produced at Ranchers Beef.35

It should be noted that FSIS never conducted an audit of Ranchers Beef, Ltd. FSIS officials indicated that Ranchers Beef was a new company that had come into existence in 2006 and that the agency did not have the opportunity to schedule it for an audit before it ceased operations in August 2007.36 Yet, the CFIA had certified the new company to export its products to the U.S. FSIS did not delist Ranchers Beef until October 20, 2007 –– some two months after it ceased operations.37

USDA officials admitted during an October 23, 2007 news teleconference that FSIS had not formally informed trading partners of the new FSIS policy of testing for beef trim that it had initiated for domestic beef plants in March 2007.38 Therefore, all countries that exported beef products to the United States between March 2007 and October 2007 were not in compliance with U.S. food safety standards.

In response to the findings of the Ranchers Beef investigation, FSIS announced that, effective November 9, 2007, it would institute increased testing of all imported meat and poultry products from Canada for E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes.39 That enhanced testing regime ceased on November 28, 2007.




b. Aliki Foods Recall of Chicken and Pasta Product for Listeria Monocytogenes Contamination41

On October 9, 2007, FSIS announced a voluntary recall by Aliki Foods, Incorporated that had imported 70,400 pounds of chicken/broccoli fettuccine alfredo frozen dinners that had been possibly contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The product had been produced by Canadian Establishment Number 219, Otter Valley Foods Incorporated, located in Tillsonburg, Ontario. Discovery of the contamination came as result of FSIS microbiological testing at the import establishment.


D. The failure to delist Canada would be contrary to the FMIA, PPIA, as well as arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, and thus contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act.

Given the overwhelming evidence that the country’s inspection system is not meeting requirements equivalent as those applicable to official establishments in the United States, including the admission of this in numerous agency audits, FSIS' failure to issue a rule delisting Canada under 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b) would violate the FMIA, which states that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat food products of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, capable of use as human food, offered for importation into the United States shall be subject to the inspection, sanitary, quality, species verification, and residue standards applied to products produced in the United States.” 42 It would also violate the PPIA, which states that

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all poultry, or parts or products of poultry, capable of use as human food offered for importation into the United States shall ––
be subject to inspection, sanitary, quality, species verification, and residue standards that achieve a level of sanitary protection equivalent to that achieved under United States standards; and
have been processed in facilities and under conditions that achieve a level of sanitary protection equivalent to that achieved under United States standards.43

Additionally, in its 2005 audit report, the OIG found inconsistencies in the application of FSIS’ policy of establishment delistment. For example, FSIS moved to delist plants in Belgium and Australia because they were not subject to daily inspection, but failed to take the same action against Canada.44 In 2003, FSIS took the very strong step of suspending Argentina’s ability to certify plants that could export to the United States because “past audit findings revealed continuing problems with the implementation of U.S. inspection requirements in certified establishments in Argentina.” 45

Should FSIS continue to provide preferential treatment to Canada, and choose not to delist its without proper support or foundation, especially when it has had knowledge of the shortcomings of the Canadian inspection system at least back to 2003, such a decision would surely be arbitrary and capricious as well as an abuse of discretion.




ConclusionsThe Canadian food safety system has numerous deficiencies that have been discovered and documented by FSIS auditors in recent years. There have been major recalls involving imported Canadian meat and poultry products that have called into question the safety of those products imported into the United States. In spite of these findings, the FSIS continues to treat Canada deferentially.

Furthermore, we are extremely concerned that FSIS is entertaining a proposal by Canada that would seriously undermine the continuous inspection standard that has been the underpinning of U.S. meat and poultry safety law. It has become apparent that Canada’s less rigorous inspection policies have led to some of the recent incidents involving contaminated food entering into our food supply.

In light of these significant food safety issues, we respectfully request that FSIS immediately begin rulemaking to remove Canada as country that is eligible to export meat and poultry products under 9 C.F.R. §§ 327.2 (b) and 381.196 (b).


Sincerely,

Wenonah Hauter,
Executive Director
Food & Water Watch