The National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection is a body of stakeholders who advise and make recommendations to the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). On Sept. 27 and 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee met to discuss a request for information that the Advisory Committee had received from the FSIS administration. FSIS asked the Advisory Committee if it is necessary to "clarify the Agency's positions on the custom and retail exemptions to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products produced under the exemptions are safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged."
The Advisory Committee was asked the following questions:
1) Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to set a numerical limit on the number of individuals allowed to co-own an animal presented for slaughter/processing under the custom exemption provision?
2) Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to clarify that collectively-owned membership organizations or other firms (e.g., a group of individuals residing across disparate locations organized into a “livestock ownership co-op” via an online platform) cannot “own” animals for purposes of the custom exemption?
3) Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to clarify that custom operators should maintain records that demonstrate an exact correspondence between the individuals owning a particular animal prior to slaughter and the individuals receiving any part of the products derived from that animal?
Sadly, the Advisory Committee, despite its talent, expertise and good intentions, fell prey to the temptation of ignoring the part of the question that asked "should FSIS conduct rulemaking" and went directly into discussions of what the new rules should be.
The questions before the Advisory Committee asked whether rulemaking was necessary but the Advisory Committee failed to provide any evidence indicating that the utilization by the public of the custom exemptions under current standards and practices was leading to any empirical food safety problem.
While some members of the Advisory Committee generally supported the way custom slaughter and processing is currently being utilized, none voiced the opinion that no rulemaking needs to be undertaken since the system was operating as intended with no actionable evidence of an elevated level of risk to public health.
When answering the question why are any new regulations needed at all, the answers included subjective considerations such as that the regulations were written a long time ago, or that more people are doing it now. Fictional worst-case scenarios were offered such as the guy who brings a cow every day to custom slaughter-- you know he's not eating all that meat-- or what if 300 people end up owning a cow? It was pointed out by other Advisory Committee members that guy selling the meat would be breaking the law and that would not be the fault of the custom exempt facility or the underlying regulations.
Mythical accounts were offered of what the original intent of Congress was when they put the exemption into law in the first place such as, for example, that Congress intended it only for farmers who raise meat for their own families whereby in practice since its inception it has more often afforded the ability of non-farmers to purchase meat for their families from local producers.
Custom slaughter and processing exempt from USDA inspection is a long-time tradition in many communities. It is a model for obtaining fresh, locally-produced meat products that is being adopted by more and more people who include meat in their diets and seek to eat more locally-produced foods. The custom exemption at 21 U.S.C. 623(a) and 464(c)(1)(B) allows facilities to operate without Federal inspection if they slaughter and process livestock for the exclusive private use of the owner of the livestock, members of the owner's household, or the owner's nonpaying guests or employees.
What likely will happen as a result of the Advisory Committee's recommendation to FSIS to proceed with rulemaking is that a formal rulemaking process will be initiated at some point by FSIS. That process would include extensive opportunity for public comment and it would be a battle to defend the current system that is working as intended from being ruined by unnecessarily tinkering with the regulations.
If the Advisory Committee recommendations ultimately result in new rules, it would be a perfect example of over-regulation, or, regulation for regulation's sake.
Please listen to these two public comments made on Sept. 28 to the Advisory Committee by Judith McGeary, Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and Johnathan Hladik, Policy Director for the Center for Rural Affairs.
Judith McGeary (3 minutes) >> LISTEN
Johnathan Hladik (3 minutes) >> LISTEN
The next step will be for people and organizations to flood the FSIS administration with messages the persuade FSIS to abandon any plans to conduct any unnecessary rulemaking to "clarify the Agency's positions on the custom and retail exemptions" because the current system is already doing a good job of ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products produced under the exemptions are safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.
Contact Paul Kiecker, FSIS Administrator
Paul.Kiecker@usda.gov
(202) 720-7025
=====
Final Recommendations on Custom and Retail Exemptions from Federal Inspection by the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, Approved Sept. 28, 2021. Source: National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection 9/28/2021 Webinar Shared Screen
A. Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to set a numerical limit on the number of individuals allowed to co-own an animal presented for slaughter or processing under the custom exemption provision? If so, what factors should the Agency consider, if any, to determine the limits for different amenable species?
1. Recommendation: The subcommittee is divided on whether limits should be set on the number of individuals allowed to co-own an animal presented for slaughter or processing under the custom exemption provision.
2. Recommendation: Although there was not consensus on whether a limit should be proposed, if FSIS seeks to set a limit on the number of individuals allowed to co-own an animal presented for slaughter or processing under the custom exemption provision, it should set separate limits for different species.
3. Recommendation: If limits are set, an owner(s) could be collectively owned membership organizations or firms [sic]. See recommendations below on these types of owners.
4. Recommendation: FSIS should focus its efforts on robust record keeping and traceability requirements for custom operators.
B. Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to clarify that collectively-owned membership organizations or other firms cannot "own" animals for purposes of the custom exemption?
1. Recommendation: FSIS should clarify (by an appropriate regulatory mechanism) that collectively owned membership organizations or other firms can "own" animals for purposes of the custom exemption provided records are maintained that all receivers of product were owners of the animal before slaughter.
2. Recommendation: Rulemaking should be conducted to set parameters on collectively owned membership organizations or other firms, such as records of the names and contact information for all "owners" and informed consent of receiving uninspected products from each "owner."
C. Should FSIS conduct rulemaking to clarify that custom operators must maintain records that demonstrate an exact correspondence between the individuals owning a particular animal prior to slaughter and the individuals receiving any part of the products derived from that animal?
1. Recommendation: FSIS should clarify (by an appropriate regulatory mechanism) that custom operators must maintain records that demonstrate correspondence between the owner(s) of a particular animal prior to slaughter and the owner(s) receiving any part of the products derived from that animal.