Stricter testing for federal ground beef program may not lead to safer meat

December 09, 2010

WASHINGTON -- A new National Research Council report finds no scientific basis that more stringent testing of meat purchased through the government's ground beef purchase program and distributed to various federal food and nutrition programs -- including the National School Lunch Program -- would lead to safer meat.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) buys ground beef from suppliers who must meet mandatory process, quality, traceback, and handling controls as well as comply with strict limitations on the amounts of bacteria in the meat, such as E. coli and salmonella. AMS then distributes the ground beef to federal programs, including food banks, emergency feeding programs, Indian reservations, and disaster relief agencies. In its assessment of AMS's ground beef purchase program, the committee that wrote the report said validated cooking processes provide greater assurance of ground beef's safety than would additional testing for pathogens. Testing alone cannot guarantee the complete absence of pathogens because of statistical implications associated with how beef is sampled during testing.

The committee's analysis of the number of illnesses since 1998 linked with AMS ground beef provided to schools suggests that outbreaks were rare events before AMS requirements became more stringent in February, implying that controls already in place were appropriate for protecting public health. For instance, no recorded outbreaks of E. coli or salmonella associated with AMS ground beef have occurred in more than a decade. Prevention of future outbreaks will depend on eliminating contamination during production and ensuring meat is properly handled, stored, and cooked before it is served, the committee emphasized.

As part of its review, the committee also attempted to compare the AMS specifications with those of large industry purchasers of ground beef. Among purchasers, the committee found considerable differences in testing and safety standards and suspected that the intended use of the ground beef could account for the variations. For example, all raw AMS ground beef is distributed in frozen form, but distributors of fresh meat products may require different standards designed to improve shelf life. While AMS safety requirements appear comparable to or more demanding than those of commercial companies on the surface, the lack of information detailing the science used for corporate specifications prevented the committee from making direct comparisons.

Additional specifications under the AMS program call for testing food samples and surfaces at the suppliers to look for the presence of "indicator" microorganisms that could denote unsanitary conditions, improper hygiene and processing techniques, post-processing contamination, and storage-temperature abuse. Although a reduction in the number of indicator organisms implies a reduction in the amount of pathogens, the presence of an indicator does not guarantee that a pathogen is also present, the committee said. For an indicator to be an effective predictor of a pathogen's presence, a statistical association needs to be established. Therefore, the committee recommended that AMS assess the usefulness of its microbiological data as a scientific basis for testing for indicators.

"The report encourages AMS to strengthen its established specifications and requirements for ground beef by utilizing a transparent and clearly defined science-based process," said Gary Acuff, chair of the committee and professor and director of the Center for Food Safety at Texas A&M University, College Station.

In addition, the report says that some of the requirements were founded on expert opinion and industry practices where the scientific basis was unclear. The committee recommended that AMS base their requirements on standards supported by the International Commission on Microbiological Safety of Foods, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the Research Council report An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food Ingredients. It also suggested that AMS analyze data from the suppliers' bacterial testing to evaluate the safety requirements over time and use statistical methods to set testing sample and lot sizes. Overall, AMS should develop a systematic, transparent, and auditable system for modifying, reviewing, updating, and justifying purchasing specifications.

The committee noted that maintaining people's confidence in the safety, quality, and nutritional value of the products AMS purchases is especially important because of the nature of the program and the clientele it serves. Though AMS may find it appropriate to adopt and implement conservative standards and requirements that both protect public health and provide the best quality product, it needs to consider the potential unintended consequences of increased testing and product requirements, the committee said. Additional testing would likely increase costs to producers, which could impact the purchase price of ground beef available through the program. Under such circumstances, schools might decide to buy their ground beef on the open market at a lower cost.
-end-
The report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf. A committee roster follows.

Contacts:
Jennifer Walsh, Media Relations Officer
Luwam Yeibio, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

Pre-publication copies of An Evaluation of the Food Safety Requirements of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

Committee on an Evaluation of the Food Safety Requirements of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program

Gary R. Acuff (chair)
Professor
Department of Animal Science, and
Director
Center for Food Safety
Texas A&M University
College Station

William K. Hallman
Professor
Department of Human Ecology, and
Director
Food Policy Institute
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
New Brunswick, N.J.

Kerri B. Harris
President and CEO
International Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Alliance
Associate Director
Center of Food Safety, and
Associate Professor
Department of Animal Sciences
College of Medicine
Texas A&M University
College Station

Craig Hedberg
Professor
Division of Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public Health
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis

Guy H. Loneragan
Epidemiologist and Professor Department of Animal and Food Sciences
Texas Tech University
Lubbock

Juliana M. Ruzante
Risk Analysis Program Manager
Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
University of Maryland
College Park

Donald W. Schaffner
Extension Specialist and Professor
Department of Food Science
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
New Brunswick, N.J.

John N. Sofos
University Distinguished Professor, and
Director
Center for Meat Quality and Safety, and
Leader of the Food Safety Cluster
Infectious Diseases SuperCluster
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University
Fort Collins

John G. Surak
Principal
Surak and Associates, and
Professor Emeritus of Food Science
Department of Applied Economics and Statistics
Clemson University
Clemson, S.C.

Katherine M.J. Swanson
Vice President
Food Safety
Ecolab Inc.
Eagan, Minn.

Martin Wiedmann
Associate Professor
Department of Food Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.

RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Camilla Yandoc Ables
Study Director

Austin J. Lewis
Study Director

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Related Beef Articles from Brightsurf:

Research finds that UK consumers dislike hormones in beef and chlorine washed chicken
New reveals the extent to which UK consumers dislike food produced using production methods such as hormones in beef and chlorine washed chicken.

Consumption of sheep or beef liver can contribute considerably to the total intake of PFAS
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are industrial chemicals that have been used for decades in several industrial processes and consumer products due to their special technical properties.

Adding lean beef to a healthy diet does not adversely affect heart health or diabetes risk
Results from a new study show that risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes were similar when participants consumed a healthy US-style eating pattern with and without an additional 5.3 ounces of lean beef.

Model of critical infrastructures reveals vulnerabilities
An interdisciplinary team of Kansas State University researchers developed a computer simulation that revealed beef supply chain vulnerabilities that need safeguarding -- a realistic concern during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most people consider becoming vegetarian for their health
Researchers know that people are motivated to be vegetarian for different reasons -- the most common in western cultures being health, the environment and animal rights.

Beef consumption hurting river quality
A new study shows irrigation of cattle feed crops is the greatest consumer of river water in the Western United States, implicating beef and dairy consumption as the leading driver of water shortages and fish imperilment in the region.

Holstein steers that get hormone implants perform as well as implanted beef cows
Holstein steers that get hormone implants grow faster than those that do not receive the implants, and they get as big as beef cattle breeds, according to Penn State researchers, who say that's good news for dairy farmers struggling to keep their operations financially viable.

Bacteria associated with hospital infections are found in raw meat
Bacteria of the Acinetobacter ACB complex, which are frequently acquired in hospital settings, can also be found in beef meat, according to a study led by ISGlobal, an institution supported by 'la Caixa' and performed with meat samples from markets in Lima, Peru.

Post-Soviet food system changes led to greenhouse gas reductions
Changes in agriculture, trade, food production and consumption after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a new study has found.

Do you know the carbon footprint of your food choices?
Consumers greatly underestimate the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with their food choices, but they'll favor items with a lower carbon footprint if they're given clear information on the label, according to new research from the University of Technology Sydney and Duke University.

Read More: Beef News and Beef Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.