Act to Support Local Meat: Comments on HAACP System Validation
Docket Clerk, FSIS
Room 2-2127
5601 Sunnyside Avenue
Beltsville, MD 20705
Re: Comments – Draft Guidance on HACCP System Validation
Dear Mr. Almanza:
I respectfully submit these comments regarding the Draft Guidance on HACCP System Validation that were publically released on March 19, 2010.
As a consumer of livestock products who depends upon local, small independent meat processors, my concern regarding the process validation in inspected establishments HACCP programs has prompted me to submit these comments. I am not an industry big-wig; I am only one person who is concerned with the damage that I foresee these new validation requirements causing my local, independent meat processors. When HACCP was implemented, the meat industry saw a decrease in establishments. This initiative and new interpretation has the potential to decimate the remaining very small to small establishments, upon which so many Americans, including myself, depend. There is nothing wrong with the current HACCP system, whereas independent, small processors are concerned – nor is there any reason to believe the extraneous requirements would produce a safer end product. It has been estimated that the potential cost to validate a processors entire food safety system could easily run upward of $500,000 initially and over $100,000 for ongoing validation. No food safety problem has been identified to require this shift in agency interpretation of validation; I don’t understand why this is necessary when there is a system in place that is working. All I see this shift in interpretation accomplishing is:
- Devastating the remaining small meat processors (hinders commerce)
- Large decrease in the variety of products available
- Discouraging the introduction of new products, therefore reducing the number of employees (increased unemployment)
- Increasing the cost of production, therefore increasing what I have to pay
None of these sound like they would be for the good of the American consumer. I know, believe in and trust my local meat processors; therefore, I respectfully request that the Draft Guidance on HACCP System Validation be revised to clearly state that no in-plant microbial testing is required when an establishment is following the long-standing, safe processes of HACCP.
I appreciate the chance to comment on the Draft Guidance on HACCP System Validation. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
(Name and Address)
cc: [Your State Legislators- Congressmen and Senators]
[The Small Business Administration]
[Your State Farm Bureau]
[Your State Beef and Pork Council]
——————————————————————————————————————-
Find your Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Find your Senator:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your State Farm Bureau:
https://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.statefbs
Find your State Beef Council:
https://www.beefusa.org/affiFederationofStateBeefCouncils.aspx
Find your State Pork Council:
https://www.nppc.org/aboutus/stateassociations.htm
FURTHER ACTION YOU CAN TAKE:
Please also contact the Small Business Administration Ombudsman, which offers the opportunity to submit online comments on regulatory unfairness for small business. The website is:
https://web.sba.gov/nocms/client/dsp_welcome.cfm
Instructions: (unblock pop-ups)
Organization Type: SELECT “Small Business”
Federal Agency Name: USDA
Agency Contact person: Mr. Almanza
Agency Office/Division: FSIS
Click “No”
ENTER: AAMP
COMMENT:
I am writing re: HACCP System Validation for Meat Processors. When HACCP was implemented, the meat industry saw a decrease in establishments. The current initiative and new interpretation has the potential to decimate the remaining very small to small meat processing establishments. If the interpretation goes through as it is currently structured, it will most definitely be a hindrance to commerce, will decrease the variety of products available and discourage introduction of new products. This will in turn, reduce the number of employees needed and increase unemployment. It will also increase the cost of production, therefore increasing the cost I will have to pay. All of these factors alone represent unfairness toward small processors, when adding the financial burden (initially upwards of $500,000 and $150,000+ for ongoing verification) it surely must be regulatory unfairness for small businesses. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
OR you can send them a copy of your letter to FSIS/Mr. Almanza via regular mail at:
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20416
It’s very fundamental step, because unquestionably the loan conditions different greatly form facility to service. The awesome plan will surely give up up your hurt days whenever everyone need of these kind of.