81% of Consumers Oppose USDA Meat Inspection Cuts

 

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Consumer Support
for Government Meat Inspection

Findings Indicate Consumer Opposition to Proposed Cuts to USDA Meat Inspection

Washington, DC – Eighty-one percent of consumers support federal government inspection of meat and poultry while only twelve percent approve of allowing industry to do more inspection themselves, according to a poll released today by Food & Water Watch.  The poll was released as U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Food Safety Richard Raymond prepares to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives agriculture appropriations subcommittee about a plan to radically change meat inspection.

“This poll shows that the U.S. Department of Agriculture should abandon their plan to cut government inspection at many meat and poultry processing plants,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.  “Consumers continue to support government inspection of meat and poultry – and they don’t trust the meat industry to police themselves.”

The poll also revealed public support for government inspection on “wholesomeness” issues such as the presence of pus, sores, and tumors in meat products, with two out of three agreeing that government meat inspectors should focus on both safety and wholesomeness concerns when inspecting meat.  Sixty-four percent of respondents said that the government should focus on safety and wholesomeness issues equally, with 22 percent saying that the government should continue to focus the majority of inspection on safety, but pay some attention to wholesomeness issues. 

Under a USDA proposal to institute “risk based inspection” of meat and poultry, some meat and poultry plants would not be visited every day by government inspectors and wholesomeness issues would not factor into the calculation of risk used to assign government inspectors to meat plants.
 
Since late 2005, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has been initiating changes to the way meat and poultry products are inspected.  Referred to as “risk based inspection,” the agency’s plan is supposed to re-deploy its food safety resources (7600 inspectors who are stationed in meat and poultry slaughter and processing facilities) according to the food safety risk posed by each individual plant.  Problems with the agency’s data collection systems mean that the agency will not be able to actually quantify the risk posed by a specific plant, and questions remain as to whether the agency has the legal authority needed to deviate from legal requirements for “continuous” government inspection of meat plants.

“The USDA may claim that risk based inspection will make them more efficient, but for consumers, all this proposal has to offer is less inspection and more risk,” Hauter said.  “And as these new polling numbers show, the public isn’t going to support a program that takes away government inspectors who are there to make sure that meat and poultry products are safe and wholesome.” 

A Food & Water Watch analysis of USDA’s proposed risk based inspection program can be found at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/meat-inspection-1/rbi_background

----
The survey, conducted by Lake Research Partners for Food & Water Watch, was conducted among 1000 adults living in private households in the continental United States from February 28 through March 5, 2007.

Survey participants were asked:

“Currently, there are daily government inspections of meat and poultry processing plants.  Here is what some people are saying about this issue:

Some people believe that the inspection of meat-processing plants should still be done by government inspectors.  They say the industry needs independent government inspectors to keep the public safe from E. coli, salmonella and other life-threatening diseases.

Other people believe that the inspection of meat-processing plants should be done by the meat industry.  They say with modern improvements in testing, the industry is capable of inspecting the meat themselves and reporting the results to the government, thus saving taxpayer money.

Which is closer to your view?”

Need government inspection	81 percent
Industry can inspect	12 percent
Both equally	2 percent
Neither	2 percent
Not Sure/Refuse to Answer	3 percent

These results were consistent across demographic groups, with support for government inspection never falling below 73 percent for any demographic group.

Additionally, participants were asked:

“Some people have said that the government is focusing only on making sure meat and poultry is safe, and not focusing enough on whether or not it is wholesome.  This means that they are inspecting meat and poultry for food borne diseases like salmonella and E coli, but are not inspecting meat for wholesomeness problems such as pus, sores, and tumors that could indicate disease.  After hearing this information, which of the following statements is closest to your own opinion?”

The government should continue to focus mostly on safety and ignore wholesomeness issues	8 percent
The government should continue to focus the majority of the inspection on safety, but pay some attention to wholesomeness issues	22 percent
The government should focus on safety and wholesomeness issues equally	64 percent
The government should focus on wholesomeness issues more than safety issues	5 percent
Not sure/Refuse to answer	2 percent

These results were consistent across demographic groups, with support for “focus on safety and wholesomeness issues equally” never falling below 56 percent for any demographic group.

The Lake Research Partners summary of the poll findings can be found at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/meat-inspection-1/FWWmeatinspectionreleaseFINAL.pdf

# # #

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer rights group based in Washington, D.C. that challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources. Visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org.