Court Rules New Government Carcass Inspection Program Legal

The United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA") is charged with inspecting the nation's meat supply. Two statutes accomplish this: the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The statutes, which both use similar wording, require the Secretary of Agriculture to use inspectors to conduct a post-mortem examination and inspection of each animal carcass.

For most of the 1900's, the USDA fulfilled its statutory duties by having inspectors from its Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS") perform "organoleptic" inspections on each individual animal carcass. Organoleptic inspections involved an examination using traditional human senses, such as sight, touch, or smell.

In 1996,the USDA tried to change its method of inspection. Instead of having one of its FSIS inspectors perform each organoleptic inspection, the USDA required meat processors to share in the inspection duties. Under this arrangement, the processors would perform the organoleptic inspections themselves, and the FSIS inspectors would monitor the processors to ensure that they were complying with the inspection requirements. FSIS's oversight in this regard ranged from observing the processor employees as they inspected the carcasses to performing random organoleptic inspections of individual carcasses. In 1998, the American Federation of Government Employees ("AFGE") argued in the United States District Court For The District Of Columbia that the USDA exceeded its authority in promulgating the new inspection program.

AFGE contended that the federal inspection statutes required FSIS inspectors to personally inspect each and every carcass organeleptically, not just to oversee others performing such a task. On September 23, 1999, ruled against the AFGE. The district court reasoned that the word "inspection," as used in the applicable statutes, did not "mandate a direct, physical examination of each carcass."

AFGE appealed. The Court of Appeals overturned the district court ruling and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, under the FSIS's inspection program, government inspectors were "inspecting people not carcasses," and thus were in violation of their unambiguous statutory duties.

In response to the Court of Appeals' decision, the USDA modified its inspection programs. While the new inspection programs now differ somewhat according to the type of meat (i.e., poultry or pork), the essential elements of the programs are similar, and can be summarized as follows:

• At least one FSIS inspector, a "carcass" inspector, is stationed on each slaughter line and is responsible for examining each carcass to determine if it is adulterated. The carcass inspector is preceded on the line by industry inspectors who perform a preliminary organoleptic inspection.
• One "verification" inspector is assigned to each slaughter line. This inspector does not have a fixed position on the line, but continuously "floats" in order to fully evaluate the processor's inspection efforts. The verification inspector also samples carcasses from each line to detect food safety defects, selects carcass samples for microbiological testing, and reviews plant inspection records.
• All FSIS inspectors have the authority to stop or slow the production line, retain carcasses, withhold marks of inspection, and reject facilities or equipment that are not in compliance with regulations.

By way of comparison, the inspection program which the Court of Appeals struck down contained no carcass inspectors. FSIS inspectors served either in an oversight capacity (by observing industry inspectors during their organoleptic inspections) or a verification capacity (by sampling inspected carcasses from the slaughter line).

In the district court (as a result of the case having been earlier sent back from the Court of Appeals) AFGE objected to the new inspection program. It claimed that, under the new program, "federal inspectors do not subject each carcass to the close examination and critical appraisal required by law."

The USDA defended the new inspection program by arguing that the chief error of the old program--that FSIS inspectors were "inspecting people not carcasses"--has been corrected. Under the new program, contended the USDA, FSIS inspectors are now "observing directly each carcass to determine whether or not it is adulterated."

Based on the evidence and the legal precedents, the district court made the following declarations:
1) inasmuch as the USDA inspection program omits a personal inspection of each carcass by an FSIS inspector, it is a legal violation; 2) the USDA's current inspection program does not violate the law.

Source: AFGE v. Glickman, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 388 (United States District Court For The District Of Columbia) (January 17, 2001)

Published as an ongoing series by VerticalNet, Inc.© and Ornel, Inc©. Ornel Inc. (www.ornel.com), producers of CourtCases.net (www.courtcases.net).