Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Investigation: USDA Quietly Eliminated 60 Percent of Foreign Meat Inspections

Agency also lacks foreign audit transparency

Sending U.S. Department of Agriculture officials overseas to inspect meat and poultry plants whose products are destined for American consumers has long been a bedrock of our modern import safety system, but an investigation by Food Safety News found, the number of countries audited by U.S. officials each year has declined by more than 60 percent since 2008.

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has also become less transparent. The agency has failed to make audit reports public in a timely fashion and only revealed which countries have been audited in the past two years this week following multiple inquiries by Food Safety News and a blog post by former Under Secretary for Food Safety Richard Raymond questioning the lack of online records.

With an increasingly global food system – around 17 percent of the U.S. food supply is now imported – U.S. consumers are directly impacted by food safety practices and regulatory systems abroad.

Just last month, a massive E. coli O157:H7 beef recall from XL Foods in Alberta, Canada, affected 2.5 million pounds of beef that had been shipped to U.S. meat processors and grocery chains. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are no known illnesses linked to XL Foods in the United States, but at least 16 Canadians have fallen ill.

The XL Foods recall, the largest in Canadian history, might never have happened if FSIS border inspectors in Sweetgrass, Montana hadn’t found E. coli O157:H7 in multiple samples of the imported beef and raised the issue with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Food safety advocates say the incident highlights the importance of a strong border inspection system, but also raises critical questions about whether FSIS has taken a more hands-off approach in regulating foreign countries sending meat and poultry products to the U.S.

Canadian media reported this month that FSIS was preparing to audit the Canadian meat safety system. The audit had been planned and was not prompted by the XL Foods recall, according to both CFIA and FSIS officials, but the reports noted that FSIS had not audited Canada, a major meat trading partner, since 2009.

Food safety experts and consumer advocates have started wondering: Why aren’t these food safety check-ups happening annually like they used to? Some worry that budgetary pressures are forcing a reduction in the number of audits, or worse, that the reductions are part of an effort to liberalize trade at the expense of public health.

In-country audits are part of what the agency often calls a “triad of protection” for imported meat and poultry. First, USDA must establish “equivalency,” determining that the importing country has a food safety system in place that’s on par with the U.S. system. Once a country is given the go-ahead (only 34 countries are currently approved), the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service continually monitors the safety of imported products through strict re-inspection at the port of entry, by testing for dangerous pathogens, and by conducting “ongoing audits” to ensure the countries are living up to their equivalency designation.

Dr. Richard Raymond, the former Under Secretary for Food Safety, who led FSIS under the Bush administration, went public with his concerns about reducing the frequency of foreign audits this week. In a Meatingplace op-ed published Monday, Raymond questioned whether regular foreign audits were a casualty of tough budgetary times.

“I’ve always considered our foreign inspection program one of the crown jewels of our food safety system,” Raymond told Food Safety News. “Frequent audits are important. Without them, people cut corners – it’s human nature.”

Data show steep drop in foreign inspections

During the Bush administration, in-country audits generally happened annually, but, according to data provided to Food Safety News by FSIS earlier this month (which were posted online Wednesday), the number of in-country audits has dropped dramatically under the Obama administration.

Online documents show that from 2001 to 2008 FSIS inspectors were routinely evaluating, in-person, the foreign plants processing meat for American consumers. The number of countries audited annually, with only one exception (in 2006 there was a large drop in audits), was between 25 and 32, so FSIS was auditing an average of 26.4 countries per year. From 2009 to 2012, however, the number of countries audited annually dropped to between 3 and 20, so FSIS was auditing an average of 9.8 countries per year.

INFOGRAPHIC: A look at country audits conducted by FSIS 2001 to 2012.

The number of foreign countries audited started to decline significantly in 2009, to only 21 audits, but the in-country inspections that year still covered many of the major meat importers, including Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico.

In 2010, FSIS only audited 6 countries – Brazil, China, Honduras, Korea, Spain, and Uruguay – a third of what the agency had done the year before.

By 2011, the number of countries audited by FSIS was down to just 3: Australia, New Zealand and Poland.

So far in 2012, the agency has completed 10 audits, but the agency began auditing Canada on Oct. 22, so presumably that brings the total to 11. FSIS officials would not say how many more audits, if any, were scheduled through the end of the calendar year.

As of Monday, FSIS had not posted audit reports for all of the countries it audited in 2010, nor had it posted any information about which countries were audited in 2011 and 2012, telling Food Safety News that the reports were still under review. Sometime in 2009 the agency also stopped including plant audits in the reports posted online. On Wednesday, the agency updated its foreign audit page to include a handful of draft country audit reports as well as notes about which audit reports are still pending.

One former FSIS employee from the International Affairs Office told Food Safety News they could not imagine why the agency had stopped posting audit reports online in a timely manner.

“In past years, those audit reports would get posted within 60 days,” they said. “I’m surprised that FSIS isn’t being as transparent as we want them to be.”

A new approach to foreign inspection

According to interviews with former and current FSIS officials, the agency has, since 2008, been quietly changing its approach to foreign audits, making in-country visits far less frequent.

Though FSIS officials object to calling the new approach “risk-based” – they refer to the new approach as “systems-based” – internal agency documents obtained by Food Safety News clearly show that FSIS has shifted to a “risk-based” system that relies more heavily on paperwork than annual in-country inspections.

What’s particularly curious about this apparent policy shift, according to several stakeholders and consumer advocates, is that it was never made public.

Laurie Bryant, the executive director of the Meat Import Council of America, for example, told Food Safety News he was not aware that the agency had been reducing the frequency of in-country audits or that there had been a significant change in policy.

“If they’re going to make major changes to our foreign inspection program, the criteria for doing so should be made public,” said Tony Corbo, a lobbyist for Food & Water Watch. “They’ve never announced or explained this new approach. We’ve been kept in the dark on this.”

Gary Weber, who used to serve as the director of regulatory affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and now runs his own food safety consulting company, expressed concern about scaling back in-country audits.

“Audits are critical to protecting both consumer confidence and public health,” said Weber. “It’s a privilege to be able to export meat to our country.”

There is no official explanation for the significant policy change, but one official did acknowledge they “dropped the ball” by not announcing it.

Agency officials told Food Safety News they “intended to announce it in a Federal Register notice,” but haven’t because they’ve been busy issuing other policy changes. The agency said it’s “preparing the documentation around this” and intends to explain the new approach.

FSIS officials argue that the new system is more sophisticated and replaces the old “cookie cutter” audits.

The agency now uses a self reporting tool, known as SRT, that allows countries to self-report information to FSIS. Foreign inspectors provide information to the agency on things like preventive controls, microbiological and chemical testing, sanitation and government oversight. The self reporting tool has been supplementing in-country audits since 2010, according to the agency.

“We get more information from countries on an ongoing basis,” said an FSIS official. “We’re going to do less in-country audits.”

“This is more of a document approach,” said one former FSIS official, adding that SRT is more cost-effective than extensive onsite audits. “It doesn’t make sense to keep going back to the countries that don’t have problems.”

The agency is already using a tiered approach to rank countries based on risk – they look at SRT submissions, past problems and the results of FSIS’ re-inspection testing at the ports of entry. The criteria have not been made public.

Budget and transparency concerns

There is some disagreement about what motivated FSIS to adopt a new approach to foreign inspection.

Agency officials insist that budget constraints were not the reason for scaling back in-country visits. House Appropriations Committee staff confirmed that FSIS has received appropriations on par with what they’ve requested.

But a former FSIS official from the Office of International Affairs told Food Safety News that budgetary pressures were a major factor in the change.

“The budget restrictions had pretty much forced the agency to re-evaluate the most cost-effective way to do audits,” they said, noting that the agency is trying to transition to a more risk-based approach across the board.

FSIS said the new approach was suggested by the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) in August 2008, but consumer advocates dispute the claim.

One of the recommendation documents from the meeting states that the “length of time between audits can be based more on risk and compliance history in the foreign country,” and that “a three-tiered system may be appropriate,” but the documents don’t get much more specific.

“I don’t see anything in the document that says, ‘It’s fine for you to go three years without auditing a country’s system,’” said longtime consumer advocate Carol Tucker-Foreman, who served as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Food and Consumer Services under the Carter administration. “I’ve never seen anything that outlines the grounds for such an approach.”

“FSIS hasn’t provided any data showing that imported meat and poultry products are safer than those made in the U.S,” said Tucker-Foreman. “Perhaps [the White House Office of Management and Budget] wants even more cuts in the FSIS budget; perhaps pleasing our trading partners now trumps public health; perhaps it is a little of both. Whatever the cause, we think it is bad public policy.”

Pat Buck, the director of outreach and education at the Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention echoed similar concerns.

“It is concerning that Canada, which is America’s largest supplier of imported beef, is not audited every year. It would seem prudent for USDA to conduct an annual audit for those countries — Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay — that account for the bulk of America’s imported beef products,” said Buck. “It is not clear what caused this policy change.”

The agency insists it has not backed off foreign inspection; it’s just being smarter about targeting audits to where the potential problems are. Plus, FSIS points out, in-country inspections are just one part of the “triad of protection” for imports.

Nevertheless, the agency responded to follow up questions Wednesday by saying it would take a second look at its protocols regarding foreign audits: “FSIS is evaluating our process of updating audits to be more transparent and responsive to requests from our stakeholders.”

Editor’s Note: Due to concerns raised by FSIS, we want to make it abundantly clear that “foreign meat inspections” in the headline refers to USDA foreign equivalency audits, which include a review of the country’s food safety system and plant audits. More information about the agency’s equivalency procedures can be found here.

Infographic with data from FSIS contributed by James Andrews.

© Food Safety News
  • Dsfa

    See the over all pattern of Inspection as a whole?

    FSIS official. “We’re going to do less
    The agency now uses a self reporting tool
    “This is more of a document approach,” said one former FSIS official
    There is some disagreement about what motivated FSIS to adopt a new approach
    Agency officials insist that budget constraints were not the reason for scaling back
    But a former FSIS official from the Office of International Affairs told Food Safety News that budgetary pressures were a major factor in the change.
    “The budget restrictions had pretty much forced the agency to re-evaluate the most cost effective way
    ” they said, noting that the agency is trying to transition to a more risk-based approach across the board.
    FSIS said the new approach was suggested by the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) in August 2008, but consumer advocates dispute the claim.
    “FSIS hasn’t provided any data showing that meat and poultry products are safer
    Tucker-Foreman. “Perhaps [the White House Office of Management and Budget] wants even more cuts in the FSIS budget; perhaps pleasing our trading partners now trumps public health; perhaps it is a little of both. Whatever the cause, we think it is bad public policy.”
    The agency insists it has not backed inspection;
    Nevertheless, the agency responded to take a second look at “FSIS is evaluating our process of updating responsive to requests from our stakeholders.”

  • Scott Hurd

    I congratulate Dr. Raymond on noting these facts recently in MeatingPlace.  Generally, I have great confidence in our U.S. food supply.  However,it is hard for me to believe that foreign meat has nearly the same inspection and quality control as domestically produced meat.  Most of the hazards can still be handled with cooking, but the inspection levels are not likely the same.

    As US consumer groups, animal welfare groups, environmental groups make it HARDER and harder to produce  US meat then we will IMPORT more.  For example, it is estimated that buyers refusal to accept Lean Finely Textured Beef (aka pink slime) resulted in the need to import 1 MILLION more beef cattle per year.   This is a far cry from “local production”, or “know your farmer, know your food”

    • Jon

      This doesn’t make sense:  “buyers refusal to accept …pink slime … resulted in the need to import 1 MILLION more beef cattle per year”  – what? You mean that for US consumers to eat 100% US meat it has to include downers and highly processed cutting room floor scraps?

      It’s the other way around —  US consumers really prefer higher quality meat than downer beef and pink slime burger — and if US Big Meat can’t supply a quality product — then the larger  markets will…. including local pasture-raised as well as imports.

      • doc raymond

        Jon, Downers are prohibited from entering the food chain, and the “cutting room floor scraps” were  actually put into combo bins that contain the trimmings from which ground beef is made. Now that these trimmings are no longer made into LFTB, they are being cooked and you are eating them as further processed meat. 

        • Jon

          No doc — maybe such processed meat is your cup of tea but I’M not eating them — 

    • More meat was imported from countries that primarily feed their cattle grass, because the meat is naturally leaner.  A solution would be for people to eat less beef (we eat far too much anyway), and for switching our beef production over to grassfed, rather than corn fed. 

      • Amber D.

        Just because beef is grass-fed versus corn-fed doesn’t make it safer or less likely to contain pathogens. Inspection is needed NO MATTER HOW the animal was raised or its diet. Actually, it’s more like we eat too much of everything. Meat is a great source of nutrients and protein and is healthy in a balanced diet. 

        • I think Shelley was pointing out that grassfed beef is often leaner (in response to the LFTB comment). Meat is a source of nutrients and protein, but it also contains saturated fat and cholesterol. Many Americans need to watch their cholesterol intakes as a major health concern. According to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the average American consumes too much saturated fat.

          http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicid=29 (See NSW-18).So moving towards leaner meats, or better yet beans, legumes, or other sources of protein and nutrients, is a good choice for most Americans.

          • Thanks, Michael.

            Yes, my comment had to do with the reason why beef is being imported from other countries because of the BPI backlash.
            Michael also touched on what I consider to be one of the most perfect foods: legumes. 

          • doc raymond

            Michael, what in the world does this rant have to do with international food safety?

          • My “rant”? Is that intended to be a rhetorical question?

            I was just clarifying some things (with facts based on widely-accepted scientific consensus that are endorsed and promoted by the federal government, and a citation nonetheless). 

            Why don’t you ask Shelly or Amber why they brought up the finer (no pun intended) aspects of beef. Or better yet, ask Scott Hurd why he brought up LFTB in the first place, and what in the world that has to do with international food safety. That seems to be what got us all on the subject.

            Or you can abstain from entering the discussion all together. It would certainly be more dignified than asking rhetorical and demeaning questions. Feel free to explain if yourself if there has been a failure in communication.

          • Yes, I was responding to the assertion about the pink slime controversy leading to increased importation of beef.  And the reason why: the need for grassfed beef trim. 

            A solution would be more grassfed beef in the US. 

            What does this have to do with safety?

            If the concern is about safety of imported beef and cutting back on inspections, more grassfed beef in this country would mean less imported beef.

            Better yet: eating less beef would require less imported beef. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone getting E.coli from a chickpea.

          • doc raymond

            Hurd brings up the example of LFTB and its demise, brought about by overzealous reporting and derogatory name calling, that has brought about the need to import more beef. It is a very valid concern since FSIS has decided imported beef no longer needs the scrutiny it used to get. By clarifying with citations, you really mean getting your meatless agenda in front of us again.

          • Richard, you’re mud slinging is unproductive and childish. Others on this website were having a conversation that dealt with ways to reduce dependence on imported meat. There’s a wide gap between decreasing consumption and a “meatless agenda”. You should try stepping outside of the meat industry echo chambers. There are public health concerns and all sorts of wonderful things out here.

        • richard d.

          It has more to do with the amount of hormones and antibiotics and the facilities they were slaughtered in!  A good healthy animal can be brought in to an uninspected slaughter facility with filthy conditions and e-coli living rampatly, the beef can pick up the germs and they can grow on the carcass. Even sick animals are rushed to slaughter in many countries. Know your rancher/farmer, inspect where and how they’re grown and the facility they’re slaughtered in. In foreign beef there is no penelty for bad practices, once the meat is sold to a broker, it is pushed for sale here. The inspectors are the only line of defense. Beware of anyone wanting to do away with these agencies that inspect your food. It’s about someone profiting! Snake oil!!

      • doc raymond

        Shelley, you repeat the mantra so many mistakingly make—that australian beef is primarily grass fed. Maybe if you had traveled to Australia, and visited their many feedlot operatoins, and talked to their producers and the Australian Meat Industry Council, you would quit making this mistake and educate others while you are at it. Differing opinions are great–just try and keep them factual please, otherwise no one will listen.

        • Ned

          Hey — for a real taste of quality (long since lost in supermarketland) try the grassfed beef from Uruguay and THEN look closer to home — to US farmers who raise quality beef outside of the industrialized feedlot system….

        • Replying to your comment in context:

          There’s been an increase in importation of beef to make up for using less of the BPI adulterated beef because of a an increased need for trim from grassfed beef. I don’t believe I mentioned Australia in my comments.  However, Australia,  New Zealand, and Uruguay are commonly mentioned in this context. 

          What is there about this that’s not factual?

          I’ve never been to Australia, but most descriptions I’ve read of the beef industry state that most of the beef is grassfed. That’s not saying all the beef is grassfed, but most of the beef.  In context, most of the increase in beef trim from Australia would be for trim from grassfed beef because it is leaner. 

          What about this is not factual?

          If you disagree with these comments, I suggest you take it up with the media:


          Or the USDA


          • doc raymond

            Your USDA link says nothing about Australian beef being primarily grass fed–and it is not. I have been there on official business and met with the industry and use their numbers.

          • The USDA link does say that most imported beef is grassfed.  This story is about beef imports. I’m only focusing on imported beef. 

    • doc raymond

      Totally agree, Dr. Hurd.

  • Excellent report. We should be concerned about cost cutting when it comes to food safety. 

  • JG

    The present administration will do anything to keep from harming our trade partners. Even at the expense of food safety to the us consumers. As a Federal inspector for 32 years and having been in a foreign country to observe its safety inspections I cannot understand why one would believe any foreign country’s inspection program would even come close to that of the USDA’s. Self reporting will never work when we are dealing with profits.

  • doc raymond

    President Obama, soon after his election, said that the American Food Safety System is a threat to the public’s health and immediately named himself a food safety advisory committee. Now he allows international audits to be dramatically reduced without telling anyone? Self-reporting is even worse than third party audits, and we all know how well those worked for eggs, peanut butter and cantaloupe. From 2005-2008, exports were prohibited four times because the FSIS audits found problems. Now if you only audit those countries once every four years, how are you going to protect the public? 
    This is just ridiculous and should be front page news, not pink slime.

    • James

      Not to worry — under a Romney Administration we won’t have Any regulations!!

  • Drsunshine

    Grass fed – Corn Fed, Saturated fats… This article has nothing to do with. The question is …Do you want to know if your meat is processed in a clean facility with knowledgeble staff who understand food safety risks and control them as confirmed by the FSIS or… do you want to buy meat that has no such precautions and take the risks with every purchase. I prefer the former even if it costs more.

  • Boogielate

    But how can USDA continue to carry out all those responsibilities, if its budget is continuously reduced?

  • Oginikwe

    This is a disaster in the making.
    We never learn: not from the pet food recalls or the thousands of kids sickened in Germany.  Every year, we have increasing food poisonings from global food trade.

    Makes me very happy that we grow our own.

  • doc raymond

    Prime rib or bone-in rib eye for me, please. Just stop making its production more difficult and hence the price higher. 

    • I know, wanting bette and more sustainable livestock practices–safer and healthier food–is _such_ a pain. 

      Why don’t we go back to the days before Upton Sinclair. Then you’d have all the cheap meat you’d want. 

  • doc raymond

    They got every penny they asked for for international programs. They should tell us where it is all going.

  • According to Richard’s comment above, they are not his cup of tea. But he would like other folks to eat the trimmings because he believes that would make his rib-eyes less expensive. 

    He seems to have tremendous faith that whatever profits the meat industry made off of LFTB were passed on to the consumers in the form of lower prices. It would be nice to see if he can demonstrate this with actual economic data. 

    • doc raymond

      I wish I was a grad student in NYC with time to research ridiculous questions, but if Mr. Bulger actually ate ground beef, he would already know the answer to his question. Prices have gone up. And i have also answered it in other blogs. Where in my responses do you interpret that “they are not his cup of tea?” i eat processed meat and i do not worry, except for the that the likes of Bulger are making my choices more expensive, and that is my gripe. Choice is good, just do not force your choice on me and others as Dr. hurd suggested on the first response. 

      • So, no research needed? You just know prices are going up, and you just know it is because of LFTB?

        I’m sure there are some grad students in NYC that would love to “just know” stuff without having to back anything up. Did you base policy decisions at USDA on “just knowing”?

        You also seem to “just know” what I eat. Did a crystal ball show you my refrigerator? You might want to get it checked out. I think it is malfunctioning. It is certainly making you look like a fool.  

        And no one is forcing you and Scott to forego LFTB. It’s still legal, Richard. But I guess you just don’t know that..

        • Michael Bulger

          If anyone is still reading this thread with any semblance of real curiosity, they might be interested to consider other factors that could lead to increases in ground beef prices. The most obvious is the increased costs of grain-based livestock feeds. This has been a major recent issue in agriculture.

          Corporations can also set prices in ways that are not directly related to cost. A few examples of reasons why a firm might raise prices independent of changes in the costs of production are decreased market competition, increased consumer demand, and the underlying goal of increasing profits.

          The main point to remember is that it is seldom simply supply & demand, “What Goes in Point A Comes Out Point B” economics. In the food system, many actors play a role in influencing prices. Before it reaches the end-consumer, beef goes from farm, to feedlot, to processing, to transportation, marketing, and retail. All of those steps along the way are complicated and fluid economic actors, and all have the potential to raise prices or absorb costs. It is intuitive to say that a decrease in the cost of production in beef processing will mean lower costs at the end of the supply-chain, but that would be assuming that no actor along the way will simply capture the profits instead of seeking to drop prices and go after greater share of the market. The decision to capture profits becomes easier when a firm can predict the prices of its competitors, and this becomes easier when a market is consolidated among a small number of firms. Excessive consolidation leads to imperfect competition, and both the meat processing and retail industries in the US are more consolidated now than they have been for most of our history.

          Who can say for sure where any advantages from LFTB ended up? We could theorize many explanations. Consumers are one of them, but so are labor wages, reinvestment in company infrastructure, retailers, or BPI’s executive salaries and political donations…

          The truth is out there, but you can’t “just know” it. You don’t need to be a grad student to understand that truth.

  • doc raymond

    it does not

    • Come on, Richard. Try a little harder. 

      First paragraph under the “Beef Trade” heading: “Most beef that the United States imports is lower value, grass-fed beef destined for processing, primarily as ground beef.”

      Shelley was right, you were wrong.

    • Oh good lord, this is getting tiresome. 

      “Despite being the largest producer of beef in the world, the United States is a net beef importer. Most beef that the United States produces and exports is grain-finished, high-value cuts. Most beef that the United States imports is lower value, grass-fed beef destined for processing, primarily as ground beef.”

  • yogachick

    Go vegan and then you don’t have to worry about getting sick from eating disgusting flesh.