Posture at the top: the industry association’s view
Posted: November 27, 2011
Categories: Food in the News / News from Sustain Ontario / The Meat Press
Case Study #3
The Ontario Independent Meat Processors
The credibility of Ontario’s meat processing industry is top of mind for the Ontario Independent Meat Processors (OIMP). They are a membership based organization that represents meat processors of all sizes and certifications across the province. OIMP has been working to build industry integrity lost when Aylmer Meat Packers was at the heart of a tainted meat scandal in 2003. The Aylmer plant was processing downer* animals after hours, a practice forbidden by both provincial and federal regulating bodies. The incident hurt relations with local markets in Ontario, OIMP Executive Director Laurie Nicol explains. “We’ve done lots of work to regain integrity since that time. Even if we had one reported illness from an OMAFRA inspected plant, our industry would be crippled.”
The mission of the OIMP has been to “move the industry forward” and to increase the market-share of Ontario produced meat. OIMP worked closely with OMAFRA to develop the new Meat Regulation of 2005. These regulations attempt to harmonize Ontario meat inspection standards with their federal counterpart in order to create a universal level of food safety nationwide. It’s also a goal that could help build consumer confidence in provincially inspected meat processors.
OIMP on abattoir decline
The 2005 Meat Regulation is built on the recommendations of the Honourable Roland J. Haines, who reviewed Ontario’s meat inspection regime and released “Farm to Fork: A Strategy for Meat Safety in Ontario” in 2004. In his report, Justice Haines’ acknowledges the value and vulnerability of small meat processors. “They [small and medium provincial abattoirs] asked that any changes to the system or standards not endanger smaller abattoirs. In my view, this can be accomplished without jeopardizing the primary goal of meat safety.” But despite subsequent OMAFRA programs to support and expand the abattoirs, their once geographically-diverse network continues to shrink. There is widespread concern among the food and agricultural community that the regulations are hurting small meat processors and contributing to the dwindling number of abattoirs in the province.
It’s a reality OIMP addresses with tough love and some skepticism about the business models used by the disappearing meat processors. OIMP Executive Director Laurie Nicol says it’s not something that can be attributed to the amplified regulations. “Abattoirs are businesses. They have to be viable. You can’t expect every abattoir to still be there if you chose not to support it before. So instead of five slaughterhouses competing for everyone’s business, now you’ve got one and it can run full time.” While the system may be finding new efficiencies, small farmers are not. Some are forced to travel in excess of one hundred kilometres to have their animals processed. They are up in arms at the suggestion that the market was saturated by inefficiently run abattoirs and that all abattoir loss is not quality-loss.
But Nicol also indicated that some abattoirs didn’t so much disappear as metamorphose; some stopped slaughtering and became Free Standing Meat processing Plants, some went to federal inspection, and others started co-packing with other plants. She is confident in the future of the industry – for those willing to remain current with regulations and to ask for help where help is needed.
A science-based paradigm
Like most in the industry, OIMP stands strongly behind the Meat Regulation. “These regulations are based on the science that we know,” says Nicol. The OIMP’s in-house food scientist and Meat Extension Specialist, Clive Kingsbury, points to the increased prevalence of listeria and the changing micro-environment as evidence supporting the rigorous science-based protocols. “Thirty years ago listeria wasn’t a problem. Now we have superbugs and strains of e.coli that never existed before that are emerging from the abuse of chemicals and antibiotics. A superbug can burrow into cracks you can’t even see where it produces a bio-film that allows it to replicate so fast.”
Given the sophistication of the micro-world, OIMP argues that an effective food safety program must be built on scientific studies and risk analysis. I’ve heard a million times, this is my grand-father’s recipe, no one has ever been hurt,” recounts Kingsbury. “But they don’t realize it’s the micro-world that has changed.”
Safety matters, not size
Unlike a growing minority in the industry, OIMP does not believe that the regulations can be scaled to reflect the size of an operation. The OIMP is sending out a clear message that smaller isn’t safer and that science-based food safety is the trump card when it comes to meat processing. Kingsbury explained that “Superbugs don’t discriminate based on size. Just because you’re smaller doesn’t mean you’re safer. Just because you’re bigger doesn’t mean you’re less safe.”
He denies the notion that smaller plants are more hands-on, and therefore the risk is easier to manage. “That is scientifically not true. The risks are the same as with a bigger plant,” Kingsbury argues. “People think that if you have a bigger plant, machines make you lose touch with your own process and product. They feel like if they are making it and touching it with their hands they think they are more in control of what is happening to it. Actually, the risks are higher because they have more cross-contamination, for example.”
When asked the ubiquitous Maple Leaf question “are the big plants really as safe as the small when the most well-known tainted meat scare of the decade was traced to one of the industry’s biggest players?” his answer is ready. It’s a numbers game. More animals pass through large processors that operate twenty-four hours a day, increasing the probability that when some tainted meat is in the system, it will turn up at the facilities that turn out more volume and be picked up at the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Kingsbury explained the need for industrial surfaces and machinery that are absent from many of the smaller operations, saying some surfaces like wood would not withstand the rigours of proper sanitation. “The regulations are looking for something strong, smooth, and impervious. With wood, you can clean it and it looks clean, but it’s not.”
The OIMP’s paradigm leaves little opportunity for scaleable, outcome-based initiatives, like the ones proposed by the Federated Women’s Institutes of Ontario (FWIO). Whereas the OIMP identifies areas within the regulation for operational controls, the FWIO argues that the whole Meat Regulation is biased in favour of the giant companies, due to a one-size-fits all food safety program that drives the cost of compliance too high for small processors. Rather than be seen as inefficiencies, the FWIO want “government policies [that] include small, local abattoirs as an essential component of a robust food production system.” But the OIMP says that without science behind the arguments for outcome-based programs, they’ve got little clout.
OIMP supporting compliance
The “rolling out” process of the Meat Regulation has been marred by misunderstanding and inconsistent expectations for many meat processors. The regulations are notoriously difficult to understand and have been subject to various interpretations from inspector to inspector. To help ensure none of their members were left behind, OIMP had an outreach coordinator on the road to help plants come into compliance as the breadth of the regulations expanded.
OIMP also helped their members access some of the $25 million provided by OMAFRA to make upgrades necessary for compliance. But Nicol explained that many gave the money a pass, saying it wasn’t enough. “Use it up and then I can go and ask the government for more,” she advised. “But a fair number didn’t apply.”
In short
Few object to the value of the Meat Regulation; food safety is a value shared by most. But the imperfect nature of the regulations and their application remains. The program is necessary, but prohibitive. The OIMP says meat safety depends on a preventative, science-based program that holds every operation accountable to the same process. Others like the FWIO want meat processors to be accountable to the same outcomes by observing processes that reflect the scale of their operations.
Regardless of the method, the same rigour that is needed to bring processors into compliance is needed to harmonize the interpretation and application of the rules. OMAFRA’s meat inspection program managers, supported by organizations like the OIMP, have a critical role to play in listening and responding to the gaps in understanding across the regulations, among producers and consumers.
*Downer animals cannot walk on their own, something that is indicative of injury, sickness, or disease like BSE, or mad cow disease.