[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63283-63284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30182]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 63283]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. 97-057N]
Notice of Change of Inspection Procedures; Adoption of Selective
Carcass Palpation Procedure for Lambs
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is clarifying the changes that it
intends to make in its inspection procedures for lambs. Currently,
inspectors extensively palpate the carcasses of lambs for the purpose
of detecting and removing carcasses with caseous lymphadenitis. The
Agency announced in a October 27, 1997, Federal Register notice that it
would be changing its inspection procedure for lambs in response to a
petition from the American Sheep Association. In this notice, the
Agency is clarifying the changes that it intends to make and the basis
for those changes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alice Thaler, Chief, Concepts and
Design Branch, Inspection Systems Development Division, Office of
Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation, FSIS; telephone (202) 205-
0005 or FAX (202) 690-0824.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSIS is issuing this notice to clarify, and
to provide additional information about the basis for, certain planned
changes in how it inspects lamb carcasses that it announced in the
Federal Register of October 27, 1997 (62 FR 55569). The National
Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection recommended that FSIS
clarify the terminology that it used in the October 27 notice, and that
the Agency more fully explain the basis for its planned action. In the
October 27 notice, FSIS used the term ``hands-on'' to describe its
current inspection procedures and the term ``hands-off'' to describe
the new inspection procedures that it planned to implement. FSIS
believes that the terms ``extensive carcass palpation'' and ``selective
carcass palpation'' more accurately describe its current and its
planned new inspection procedures for lambs. Thus, it is replacing the
terms used in the October 27 notice to describe its inspection
procedures with these terms and will use these terms.
Traditionally, USDA meat inspectors have extensively palpated the
carcasses of lambs as part of their post-mortem evaluation of these
animals. The American Sheep Industry Association petitioned the Agency
to end this practice for food safety reasons. The primary justification
for this long-standing extensive carcass palpation practice was to
detect carcasses with caseous lymphadenitis.
In determining the desirability of such a procedure for lambs, FSIS
considered two questions: (1) Will diseased carcasses or parts be more
likely to reach consumers using a selective carcass palpation
inspection procedure, and (2) Are current inspection procedures which
use extensive carcass palpation likely to be spreading or adding
contamination to carcasses?
Description of Extensive and Selective Carcass Palpation
Extensive carcass palpation for lambs is described in the Meat and
Poultry Inspection Manual's inspection procedures for sheep (which
includes lambs) and goats (MPI Manual 11.1(j)(2)) as follows:
Palpate prefemoral, superficial inguinal, or supramammary,
and popliteal lymph nodes.
Palpate back and sides of carcass.
Palpate prescapular lymph nodes and shoulders, and lift
forelegs.
These procedures are considered extensive carcass palpation because
no other livestock species receives palpation of this magnitude.
In contrast, selective carcass palpation will mean that inspectors
palpate lamb carcasses only when they have reason to believe that
disease conditions or pathology may be present. Selective carcass
palpation will apply only to carcasses and not to viscera. Selective
carcass palpation will not change other inspection procedures for lambs
such as turning the carcass, which is necessary to perform inspection
procedures.
Comparing Extensive Carcass Palpation to Selective Carcass
Palpation Procedures
In determining whether to change inspection procedures for lamb
carcasses, FSIS first considered the benefits derived from extensive
carcass palpation and determined what food safety or other consumer
protection benefits, if any, are attributable to the current inspection
procedure. Caseous lymphadenitis is the primary disease of lambs
detected by extensive carcass palpation. In the United States, six
federally inspected plants slaughter 80 percent of the lambs. From
Fiscal Years 1987 to 1996, these six plants slaughtered 26,347,480
lambs and yearlings (present data do not distinguish between lambs and
yearlings), and FSIS inspectors condemned only 1,203 animals for
caseous lymphadenitis, a 0.0046 percent condemnation rate.
Caseous lymphadenitis is rare in lambs, and it does not cause
foodborne illness in people who eat lamb, regardless of how thoroughly
or not it is cooked, or in people who handle lamb. Of the diseases
routinely present in lambs, seven are of public health concern:
actinobacillosis, campylobacteriosis, contagious ecthyma,
echinococcosis, leptospirosis, Salmonella dysentery, and toxoplasmosis.
None of these seven, however, requires carcass palpation for diagnosis.
FSIS then considered whether the current inspection techniques used
on lambs that employ extensive carcass palpation cause inspectors to
spread or add contamination to lamb carcasses. Although there is no
published data on this question, the unpublished data provided to FSIS
by the American Sheep Industry Association (LeValley 1997) \1\ and data
from other food handling and health care industries (Gould and Ream
1996; Wenzel and Pulverer 1995), support the concern that extensive
carcass palpation can contaminate lamb carcasses or spread
contamination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This information is on display in the FSIS Docket Room, 300
12th St., SW., Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63284]]
Conclusion
The primary reason for extensive carcass palpation in lambs is to
detect lesions of caseous lymphadenitis. This disease does not cause
foodborne illness and has an extremely low prevalence in lambs. Other
diseases routinely present in lamb carcasses that are of public health
concern are not detected by carcass palpation. Therefore, there is
little basis to find that selective carcass palpation will cause
foodborne illness or cause diseased carcasses or parts to reach
consumers.
On the other hand, the cited literature attests to the fact that
hands are capable of spreading or adding microorganisms. Although it
has not been proven directly that extensive carcass palpation by lamb
inspectors causes microbial contamination or actually spreads such
contamination, the evidence from the sheep industry and allied
industries strongly suggests that this can occur. Thus, current
inspection procedures using extensive carcass palpation can spread or
add contamination to carcasses.
FSIS, therefore, announced in the October 27, 1997, Federal
Register notice that it was taking a hands-off inspection approach to
lambs. As stated previously, this approach is more accurately described
as selective carcass palpation. Adopting this approach entails a number
of steps, including consultation with employee organizations.
Additional information may be found in a new FSIS directive on the
Agency's planned inspection procedures for lambs, which will be
effective upon publication and after consultations have been completed.
FSIS will continue to monitor condemnation rates in plants that
slaughter lambs to identify the impact, if any, of the change. Further,
the Agency intends to look at the implications of handling product
during inspection procedures with regard to the production of all meat
and poultry products.
Done at Washington, DC, on: November 4, 1998.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
References
1. Almeida, R.C., A.Y. Kuaye, A.M. Serrano, and P.F. de Almeida.
1995. Evaluation and Control of the Microbiological Quality of Hands
in Food Handlers. Revista de Saude Publica. 29(4) 290-294.
2. Bell, R.G. and S.C. Hathaway. 1996. The Hygienic Efficiency of
Conventional and Inverted Lamb Dressing Systems. J. of Applied
Bacteriology. 81(3):225-234AB.
3. Beuchat, L.R., and J.H. Ryu. 1997. Produce handling and process
practices. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 3(4):459-465.
4. Connolly, A.M., S.R. Palmer, D. Wright, P.D. Thomas, and D.
Joynson. 1994. The role of the pre-symptomatic food handler in a
common source outbreak of food-borne SRSV gastroenteritis in a group
of hospital workers. Epidemiology & Infection. 113(3):513-521.
5. DeBoer, E., and M. Hane. 1990. Cross-contamination with
Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella spp. from raw chicken products
during food preparation. J. of Food Protection, 53(12):1067-1069.
6. Doring, G.M., J. Horz, J. Ortelt, H. Grupp, and C. Wotz. 1993.
Molecular epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an intensive
care unit. Epidemiology & Infection. 110(3):427-436.
7. Dykes, G.A., T.E. Cloete, and A. von Holy. 1991. Quantification
of microbial populations associated with the manufacture of vacuum-
packaged, smoked Vienna sausages. Int. J. of Food Microbiology.
13(4):239-248.
8. Gould, D. 1994. Nurses' hand decontamination practice: results of
a local study. J. Of Hospital Infection. 28(1):15-30.
9. Gould, D., I Wilson-Barnett, and E. Ream. Apr. 1996. Nurses'
Infection-Control Practice: Hand Decontamination, the Use of Gloves
and Sharp Instruments. Int. J. Of Nursing Studies. 33(2):143-160AB.
10. Graf, W., and W. Monius. 1977. Transmission of staphylococci
from the nose to hands and eye glasses as a nosocomial problem.
Zentralblatt Fur Bakteriologie. Parasitenkunde, Infectionskrankheite
Und Hygiene. 164(1-2): 127-137.
11. Hentschel, S., D. Kusch, and H.J. Sinell. 1979. Staphylococcus
aurens in poultry--biochemical characteristics, antibiotic
resistance and phage pattern. Zentralblatt Fur Bakteriologie,
Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankeite Und Hygiene. 168(5-6):546-561.
12. Holder, J.S., J.E. Corry, and M.H. Hinton. 1997. Microbial
status of chicken portions and portioning equipment. Br. Poult. Sci.
38(5):505-511.
13. Humphrey, T.J., K.W. Martin, and A. Whitehead. 1994.
Contamination of hands and work surfaces with Salmonella enteritidis
PT4 during the preparation of egg dishes. Epidemiology & Infection.
113(3):403-409.
14. Knittle, M.A., D.V. Eitzman, and H. Baer. 1975. Role of hand
contamination of personnel in the epidemiology of gram-negative
nosocomial infections. J. Of Pediatrics. 86(3):433-437.
15. Kjolen, H., and B.M. Andersen. 1992. Handwashing and
disinfection of heavily contaminated hands--effective or
ineffective? J. Of Hospital Infection. 21(1):61-71.
16. LeValley, S., Total Plate and Coliform Counts in Six Lamb
Packing Plants. Unpublished data, Dept. Of Animal Sciences, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1997.
17. Mbithi, J.N., V.S. Springthorpe, and S.A. Sattar. 1993.
Comparative in vivo efficiencies of hand-washing agents against
hepatitis A virus (HM-175) and poliovirus type 1 (Sabin).
59(10):3463-3469.
18. Paton, M. 1997. The Epidemiology of Caseous Lymphadenitis in
Australia and Observations on other Production Systems. Proceedings,
One Hundred and First Annual Meeting of the United States Animal
Health Association. 444-452.
19. Pavolv, A. 1997. Sources of microbial contamination in the
production of veal. Veterinaro-Meditinska Niuk. 14(3):45-53.
20. Scott, E., and S.F. Bloomfield. 1989. The survival and transfer
of microbial contamination via cloths, hands and utensils. J.
Applied Bacteriology. 68(3):2712-2778.
21. Sengupta, P.G., B.K. Sicar, S.R. Mandal, A.K. Mukhopadhyay, G.B.
Nair, et al. 1995. Epidemiology of Vibrio cholerae O139 with Special
References to Intrafamilial Transmission in Calcutta. J. Of
Infection. 31(1)45-47.
22. Smeltzer, T., R. Thomas, and G. Collins. 1980. Salmonella on
posts, hand-rails and hands in a beef abattoir. Australian
Veterinary Journal. 56(4):184-186.
23. Snider, O.P., Jr. 1992. HACCP--An Industry Food Safety Self-
Control Program--Part VI. Dairy Food & Environ. Sanitation.
12(6):362-365.
24. Todorov, I. 1975. Bacterial contamination of salted ocean
mackerel during the production process. Veterinarno-Meditsinka Niuk.
12(2):51-57.
[FR Doc. 98-30182 Filed 11-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
