More Foul Fowl

An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

About Food & Water Watch

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. Food & Water Watch works with grassroots organizations around the world to create an economically and environmentally viable future. Through research, public and policymaker education, media, and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced in a humane and sustainable manner, and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, rivers, and groundwater. Food & Water Watch 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 683-2500 fax: (202) 683-2501 foodandwater@fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org Copyright March 2008 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

More Foul Fowl

An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens
Table of Contents
1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 Introduction Background Salmonella Testing in Broiler Chickens Methods Findings Recommendations Endnotes Salmonella Failures at USDA-Inspected Broiler Chicken Establishments, 2006-2007 Testing History at Plants with Salmonella Failures

he bacteria Salmonella is the leading cause of food-borne illness in the United States1 with nearly a million cases of salmonellosis attributed annually to meat and poultry consumption.2 Of these, more than 14,000 of the victims are hospitalized and more than 400 die.3 The estimated total annual cost of all cases, foodborne and otherwise, of salmonellosis is about $2.46 billion (in 2006 dollars).4 Concern about the potential for pathogens, including Salmonella, to become resistant to antibiotics also is increasing. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are more frequently associated with illness and death than those caused by bacteria that are not resistant.5
With this update to our 2006 report, Foul Fowl: An Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens, we show the continuing failure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to protect consumers from Salmonella contamination of broiler chickens. For both the original report and this update, Food & Water Watch used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain USDAs Salmonella testing results. The original report used data from 1998 through 2005 and this update uses data for 2006 through January 2008. We are releasing this information for several reasons. First, citizens have a right to information that indicates how effectively their government is ensuring the safety of products that carry USDAs seal of inspection. Second, consumers have a right to public information concerning the relative performance of poultry-producing plants under government inspection. Third, publication of the names of plants that have failed to meet the regulatory standard may create additional incentive for plants to improve the safety of their processes.

Background
USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the government agency responsible for inspecting meat and poultry, has established acceptable levels of Salmonella contamination for different types of meat and poultry. In 1998, FSIS began enforcing a new Salmonella standard by testing raw and ground products for the presence of the pathogen. The purpose of the program was to use microbial sampling to determine when plants were not controlling food safety hazards in their production processes. Testing also was supposed to objectively indicate when industry and government were not fulfilling their food safety responsibilities. The acceptable level of contamination established for each product was based on the average level of Salmonella present for each class of product during initial baseline tests. Consequently, FSIS acceptable percentage of Salmonella contamination varies greatly by product.

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Type of Product
Steers and Heifers Cows and Bulls Ground Beef Hogs Broiler Chickens Fresh Pork Sausage Ground Chicken Ground Turkey

Acceptable Level of Salmonella Contamination

1.2% 3.5% 9.5% 10.9% 23.5% 34.0% 49.1% 54.7% standard in a subsequent testing period. In other words, the data shows that good performance does not always last for the length of time that this new policy would allow between testing periods. See plants marked with an asterisk in Chart 2 for examples of when this new policy could have delayed testing during periods of poor performance. Initially, FSIS established an enforcement program for its Salmonella program with actions getting progressively more serious with each additional failed testing period and culminating in withdrawal of inspection if the plant failed to comply with the Salmonella regulation for three consecutive testing periods. In 2001, however, a federal District Court ruled that the agency could not withdraw inspection solely based on a plants failure to meet the requirements of the Salmonella regulation. Since then, the agency reportedly increases the level of scrutiny at a plant with each successive Salmonella failure and may take enforcement action after considering the results of those investigations. Overall, the results of the FSIS program have been disappointing. While the agency claims that the 1998 implementation of new [inspection] and pathogen reduction programs represents one of the most significant changes in the regulation of the meat and poultry industry since the inspection program began in the early 1900s,7 the percentage of broiler chickens found by the agencys testing program to be contaminated with Salmonella actually increased from 10.83 percent in 1998 to 11.41 percent in 2006. 8

To determine the contamination level for a particular plant, FSIS tests a sample of the finished product each day the plant is operating until the requisite number of samples is taken. The number of required daily samples differs by species. So, for example, the testing period for a plant that slaughters steers and heifers would be as long as is necessary to collect 82 daily samples, whereas the testing period for a broiler chicken plant would be long enough to collect 51 daily samples. The length of the testing period is also affected by the frequency with which a plant produces the product. Some small plants do not produce every day, and therefore the testing period is longer at these plants to collect the same number of samples. The contamination rate of a plant is the percentage of the daily samples that are contaminated with Salmonella during the testing period. As a matter of practice, if the plants contamination rate does not exceed the regulatory standard, it will not typically undergo another testing period for approximately one year. However, on January 28, 2008, FSIS announced that plants with half or fewer of the allowable number of positive samples in their last two testing periods would not be scheduled for more tests for 12 to 24 months.6 We believe this reliance on previous performance is misguided because circumstances in a plant can change very quickly. If the agency implements this proposal, consumers could be at greater risk because past data indicates that a plant with fewer than the allowable number of positive Salmonella test results in one period can fail to meet the performance 2

Salmonella Testing in Broiler Chickens To determine the contamination level for a particular broiler chicken plant, the agency collects daily samples until it has 51. For high volume plants that are producing five to seven days each week, this testing period usually takes between two and three months.

Food & Water Watch

To collect a single sample, an FSIS inspector takes a carcass from the end of the plants production line, puts it in a sterile plastic bag with a chemical solution and agitates it for one minute. This solution is then sent to an FSIS lab to determine if the carcass was contaminated with Salmonella. Since 1998, the agency has published only generalized data from the program, usually on an annual basis. In 2006, the agency announced it would begin publishing quarterly data and it issued the first quarterly report on June 23, 2006.9 The agency also announced that, to increase incentives for plants to produce safe food, it would begin categorizing plants based on their success in meeting the regulatory standard and would begin publishing the status of individual plants on its web site. While FSIS repeated the same intention in a January 2008 Federal Register notice,10 it has thus far failed to report individual plant status. Under the agencys categorization scheme, Category 3 plants are those that fail, meaning that for broilers more than 12 of the 51 samples (24 percent) test positive; Category 2 plants pass with seven to 12 of the 51 samples (13 to 24 percent) registering a positive result; and Category 1 plants are those that pass, with zero to six of the samples testing positive for Salmonella (a zero to 12 percent contamination rate) in both the current and the previous testing set. Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection Directory on the agencys website.11 The directory does not provide information for a few of the plants we found in the test result database. We requested the names of these plants from the agency, but had not received them as of publishing this report.

Findings
Chart 1 shows that 27 poultry slaughter plants (out of a total of 189 facilities) of all sizes failed FSIS Salmonella test sets in 2006 or 2007. This means that more than 12 of the 51 samples 24 percent collected in a testing period at each slaughterhouse registered positive for the pathogen. The chart also identifies the number of positive samples during the testing period at each plant. Chart 2 reveals the compliance history of any broiler slaughter plant that failed in 2006 or 2007. It shows gaps of more than a year between FSIS testing for Salmonella in some plants. The chart also illustrates the fact that passing in one test period does not mean that contamination levels wont increase beyond the performance standard in the next period. For example, a Perdue Farms facility (#19112P) in Kentucky failed Salmonella testing in February 2007 with 32 positive results for Salmonella, up from 9 positives (a passing score) in December 2005. Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. (establishment #3P), passed a testing set in October 2002. However, FSIS did not complete another testing period there until June 2006, at which time the plant failed, with 19 of the 51 samples testing positive for Salmonella. Because FSIS was not testing during the three and a half year interim period, there is no way to determine when the plant began marketing chickens that posed a greater risk to consumers than government standards ostensibly allow. Other large plants that were not tested yearly before a failing set include establishments 325P (Texas), 4653AP (Iowa), 13456P (Arkansas), and 13485P (Louisiana). Such results undercut the position of FSIS that passing facilities should not be retested for 12 to 24 months. With no government oversight and enforcement, previously good plants may allow themselves to produce unsafe food over extended periods of time, which obviously threatens consumer health and safety.

Methods
The Salmonella testing results for 2006 and 2007 were acquired using the Freedom of Information Act. We have analyzed numerous FSIS testing databases over the past 10 years and routinely discovered errors or gaps in the data. All of our calculations are based on the data in the records we received. We received the agencys testing records from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2008. Some of these records included the establishment name as well as the establishment number, while others included just the establishment number. For those records with just the number, we found the names of the companies operating these plants in the

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Recommendations
In light of these findings, Food & Water Watch recommends that USDA: Seek legislation that makes performance standards enforceable under the meat and poultry inspection statutes. Publish on its website Salmonella testing results for each plant on a quarterly basis, including the number of samples taken at the plant and the number that tested positive for Salmonella. Abandon the proposal that plants with less than half the acceptable rate of Salmonella in their last two testing periods not be scheduled for another testing period for 12 to 24 months.

Food & Water Watch

Endnotes
1

Pathogens and Contaminants: A Focus on Salmonella. National Agricultural Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=58

6 7

73 Fed. Reg. 4767-4774, (Jan. 28, 2008)

2 Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator: Assumption Details and Citations for Salmonella. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. FSIS estimates that 63 percent of foodborne Salmonella cases (995,496) are due to the consumption of meat or poultry (USDA, 1996). Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/data/FoodBorneIllness/salmAssumptionDescriptions. asp#cases

FSIS Employees: Pathogen Reduction & HAACP. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsis. usda.gov/FSIS_Employees/Pathogen_Reduction_HACCP/index.asp
8 Serotypes Profile of Salmonella Isolates from Meat and Poultry Products January 1998 through December 2006. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/ PDF/Serotypes_Profile_Salmonella_Tables_&_Figures.pdf 9 Science: Microbiology: Quarterly Progress Report on Salmonella Testing of Selected Raw Meat and Poultry Products: Preliminary Results, January - March, 2006. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/Q1_2006_Salmonella_Testing/index.asp 10 11

Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator: Salmonella. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/ Data/FoodBorneIllness/salm_Intro.asp?Pathogen=Salmonella&p=1&s =15302&y=2005&n=1397187. Accessed on March 21, 2008, and website update on May 3, 2007.
3 4

Foodborne Illness Cost Calculator. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodborneillness/. The cost of salmonellosis from all sources is estimated to be $2,387,251,191.

73 Fed. Reg. 4767-4774, (Jan. 28, 2008)

The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. NMC Annual Meeting Proceedings (2006) Available at: www.nmconline.org/articles/NARMS.pdf

Federal Inspection Programs: Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection Directory. Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/ Meat_Poultry_Egg_Inspection_Directory/index.asp, accessed in March 2008.

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Salmonella Failures at USDA-Inspected Broiler Chicken Establishments, 2006 2007

Establishment #
3P

Name
Mountaire Farms Of Delaware Inc. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Tyson Foods, Inc.

State
Delaware

Establishment Size
Large

Date**
Jun-06

# of Positives
19

192 P

Alabama

Large

Jan-06

23

325 P

Texas North Carolina Georgia Texas California Delaware Iowa Delaware Iowa Alabama Pennsylvania Maryland Texas Arkansas Louisiana Minnesota

Large

Dec-07

16

419 P 476 P 584 P 930 P 935 P 1538 P 2178 P 4653A P 6529 P 9965 P 10830 P 13413 P 13456 P 13485 P 18688 P 6

Case Farms of NC, Inc. Pilgrim's Pride Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Fulton Processors, Inc. Allen Family Foods, Inc. Wapsie Produce Inc. Perdue Farms, Inc. Agriprocessors Inc. Koch Foods of Alabama Eberly Poultry Inc. * Buddy's Natural Chickens Tyson Foods, Inc. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation *

Large Large Large Small Large Small Large Large Small Small Very Small Small Large Large Very Small

Oct-06 Mar-06 Sep-06 May-06 May-07 Oct-06 Jan-06 Aug-06 Jan-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Jan-06 Jan-06 Dec-06

16 13 17 15 13 19 16 14 18 16 14 16 20 13 30

Food & Water Watch Establishment Size

Small Large Small Small Very Small Small Small Very Small Small

Establishment #
18739 P 19112 P 20251 P 20251 P 20538 P 27389 P 31727 P 31803 P 33826 P

Name
Cal Fresh Perdue Farms, Inc. Tecumseh Poultry, LLC Tecumseh Poultry, LLC * Pitman Farms Inc. Kiryas Joel Poultry Processing * Elite Foods, LLC

State
California Kentucky Nebraska Nebraska North Carolina California New York Michigan North Carolina

Date**
Feb-07 Feb-07 Jan-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Mar-06 Oct-06 Jan-07 Jun-07

# of Positives
22 32 15 13 17 25 13 14 27

How to Use This Chart: This chart lists those establishments that failed to meet the Salmonella performance standard from January 2006 through January 2008. The USDA typically conducts at least one testing period per year at each slaughter facility, but it may conduct more than one. Passing test periods are NOT listed on this chart. Each package of raw poultry must display the establishment number in either the inspection legend or alone on the package material. The establishment number is the most useful piece of information for consumers because many companies have plants in multiple states, sell products under different brand names, and sell their products nationwide. The establishment number will tell consumers if a product came from one of the plants on this list. Note: More than 12 positive samples means that the establishment failed to meet the USDAs standard for Salmonella. * Food & Water Watch requested the names of the slaughter plants from USDA, but did not receive them by the time of publication. ** Month when testing period ended.

Each package of raw poultry must display the establishment number in either the inspection legend oval or, by itself, on other labeling material.

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Testing History at Plants with Salmonella Failures

Establishment #
3 P

Name
Mountaire Farms of Delaware Inc.

State
Delaware

Establishment Size
Large

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Date Set Completed

Jun-98 Nov-98 May-99 May-00 Feb-01 Jan-02 Oct-02 Jun-06** Jan-07 May-07 May-98 May-99 Jan-00 Sep-01 Oct-02 Apr-04 Mar-05 Jan-06** Aug-06 Jan-07 Apr-07

# of Positives
24 14 9 1 9 3 5 19 4 4 7 2 4 9 10 6 6 23 5 1 4

192 P

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

Alabama

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Food & Water Watch

Establishment #
325 P

Name
Tyson Foods, Inc.

State
Texas

Establishment Size
Large

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ?

Date Set Completed

May-99 May-00 May-01 Apr-02 Aug-03 Jul-04 Apr-05 Jul-06 Dec-07** Nov-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 May-04 Jul-05 Jan-06 Oct-06 May-07 Dec-07

# of Positives
2 2 0 0 0 0 6 5 16 3 2 11 8 12 29 8 16 3 0

419 P

Case Farms of NC, Inc.

North Carolina

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ?

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Establishment #
476 P

Name
Pilgrim's Pride

State
Georgia

Establishment Size
Large

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Date Set Completed

Jun-98 Jun-99 May-00 Sep-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Jul-04 May-05 Mar-06 Oct-06 Feb-07 Jul-07 Jun-98 May-99 May-00 Mar-01 Oct-02 Nov-01 Jan-04 Oct-05 Sep-06 Apr-07

# of Positives
2 5 0 11 0 3 10 9 13 4 9 5 1 3 1 3 3 3 7 6 17 2

584 P

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

Texas

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10

Food & Water Watch

Establishment #
930 P

Name
Fulton Processors, Inc.

State
California

Establishment Size
Small

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Date Set Completed

Mar-99 May-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Nov-05** May-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Jun-98 May-99 May-00 Mar-01 Mar-02 Aug-03 Jul-04 Aug-05 Sep-06 Jan-07 May-07 Nov-07

# of Positives
11 4 4 8 5 5 19 15 3 5 6 6 1 1 0 4 8 5 8 6 13 4

935 P

Allen Family Foods, Inc.

Delaware

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ?

11

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Establishment #
1538 P

Name
Wapsie Produce Inc.

State
Iowa

Establishment Size
Small

Sample Set #
? 2 3 4

Date Set Completed

? Dec-05 Oct-06 Aug-07 Sep-98 May-99 Oct-99 Jul-00 May-01 Mar-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Feb-05 Jan-06 Aug-06 Jan-07 Nov-00 Jun-01 Aug-04 Dec-05 Aug-06 Apr-07

# of Positives
? 20 19 12 9 19 3 5 7 7 3 13 6 16 1 2 13 0 9 15 14 12

2178 P

Perdue Farms, Inc.

Delaware

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4653A P

Agriprocessors Inc.

Iowa

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6

12

Food & Water Watch

Establishment #
6529 P

Name
Koch Foods of Alabama

State
Alabama

Establishment Size
Small

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ? ?

Date Set Completed

Jun-98 May-99 May-00 Mar-01 Jan-02 Oct-02** Mar-03 Apr-04 Mar-05 Jan-06 Mar-07 Aug-07 Nov-00 Nov-04 Jul-05 Sep-06 Jan-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 May-02 May-04 Sep-06

# of Positives
3 7 3 5 3 15 4 4 11 18 2 5 10 29 11 16 7 3 5 0 12 14

9965 P

Eberly Poultry Inc.

Pennsylvania

Small

1 2 3 4 5 6 ?

10830 P

Maryland

Very Small

1 2 3

13

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Establishment #
13413 P

Name
Buddy's Natural Chickens

State
Texas

Establishment Size
Small

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Date Set Completed

May-00 May-01 Apr-02 Jun-03 May-04 Apr-05 Sep-06 Apr-07 May-00 Jul-01 Aug-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jan-06** Sep-06 Feb-07

# of Positives
0 3 9 9 12 3 16 2 0 2 1 0 4 20 1 5

13456 P

Tyson Foods, Inc.

Arkansas

Large

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

14

Food & Water Watch

Establishment #
13485 P

Name
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

State
Louisiana

Establishment Size
Large

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Date Set Completed

Jan-00 Aug-00 Feb-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-04 Mar-05 Jan-06 Jun-06 Nov-06 Mar-07 Jul-02 ? Dec-06 Feb-00 Dec-00 ? Apr-05 Feb-07

# of Positives
22 8 16 9 7 19 11 13 8 7 0 11 ? 30 22 20 ? 17 22

18688 P

Minnesota

Very Small

1 2 3

18739 P

Cal Fresh

California

Small

1 2 3 4 5

15

More Foul Fowl: An Updated Analysis of Salmonella Contamination in Broiler Chickens

Establishment #
19112 P

Name
Perdue Farms, Inc.

State
Kentucky

Establishment Size
Large

Sample Set #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Date Set Completed

May-99 Mar-00 Aug-00 Jun-01 Mar-02 Feb-04 Dec-05 Feb-07 Aug-07 Mar-01 Aug-01 Jun-02 Jul-03 ? Sep-04 Jul-05 Jan-06 Jun-06 Oct-07 May-02 ? Jun-05 Sep-06

# of Positives
10 7 6 5 6 5 9 32 2 16 8 8 13 ? 10 18 15 13 3 16 ? 38 17

20251 P

Tecumseh Poultry, LLC

Nebraska

Small

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ?

20538 P

North Carolina

Very Small

1 ? 3 4

16

Food & Water Watch

Establishment #
27389 P

Name
Pitman Farms Inc.

State
California

Establishment Size
Small

Sample Set #
1 2

Date Set Completed

Mar-06 May-07 Dec-05 Oct-06 Mar-07 Sep-05 Jan-07 Jun-07

# of Positives
25 2 11 13 11 4 14 27

31727 P

Kiryas Joel Poultry Processing

New York

Small

1 2 3

31803 P

Michigan

Very Small

1 2

33826 P

Elite Foods, LLC

North Carolina

Small

* Food & Water Watch requested the names of the slaughter plants from USDA, but did not receive them by the time of publication. ** A new USDA policy could have delayed this testing period that resulted in a failure. See page 3 for more details. Entries marked ? indicate incomplete data received from USDA.

Categories
FAIL

Explanation
Establishment exceeded the USDA performance standard for Salmonella in poultry -- more than 12 of the 51 samples collected by the agency tested positive for the pathogen. Establishment met USDA's performance standard for Salmonella in poultry -- 7 to 12 of the 51 samples collected by the agency tested positive for the pathogen. Establishment met USDA's performance standard for Salmonella in poultry and performed well -- 0 to 6 of the 51 samples collected by the agency tested positive for the pathogen.

PASS with more than 1/2 of the allowable positives PASS with 1/2 or less of the allowable positives

17

Food & Water Watch 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 683-2500 fax: (202) 683-2501 foodandwater@fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org