Conflict and Violence
in the Food Safety Workplace:
A Report on
Meetings Convened by the Milbank Memorial Fund at the
Request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Fulfillment of a
Cooperative Agreement of September 2000
(To request a bound copy of this report, click here.
To see a complete list of Milbank reports, click here.
When ordering, be sure to specify which report you want,
your name, mailing address, and phone number.)
FOREWORD
This report presents an action agenda for preventing
workplace violence linked to the regulatory environment in the meat, poultry,
and egg products industries. Leaders of business, government, labor, and
consumer organizations devised this agenda in January 2001 and submitted it to
the secretary of agriculture in February.
The Milbank Memorial Fund convened the group that devised
the agenda under a cooperative agreement with the Office of the Under Secretary
for Food Safety of the United States Department of Agriculture. The text of the
cooperative agreement appears as an appendix to this report. The Fund is an
endowed philanthropic foundation, established in 1905, that engages in
nonpartisan analysis, study, research, and communication on significant issues
in health policy. Most of the Fund's work is collaborative, involving strategic
relationships with decision makers in the public and private sectors.
The action agenda represents consensus among a remarkable
group of people, whose names are listed on the following pages. The Fund is
particularly grateful to the co-chairs of the group: Kathryn Higgins, former
Deputy Secretary of Labor and currently Vice President for Public Policy at the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, and William N. Martin, Chair of the
Appropriations - Human Resources Committee of the North Carolina Senate.
Daniel M. Fox
President
Milbank Memorial Fund
Samuel L. Milbank
Chair
PARTICIPANTS
The following persons attended the meetings that are the
subject of this report. They are listed in the positions they held at the time
of their participation.
Al Almanza
Deputy District Manager, Dallas District Office
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Thomas J. Billy
Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Ben Brancel
Secretary
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Robert Chubb
Assistant District Manager for Enforcement
Beltsville District Office, Field Operations
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
John M. Colmers
Program Officer
Milbank Memorial Fund
Dean A. Danilson
Vice President, Fresh Meats Quality Assurance and Food Safety
IBP Inc.
Sally S. Donner
Director, Federal Government Affairs
Kraft Foods, Philip Morris Companies
Ronnie Dunn
Supervisory Compliance Officer
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Representative, Association of Technical and Supervisory Professionals (ATSP)
Carol Tucker Foreman
Distinguished Fellow and Director
Food Policy Institute
Consumer Federation of America
Daniel M. Fox
President
Milbank Memorial Fund
Todd G. Gerken
Assistant Plant Manager
Farmland Foods
Kathryn Higgins
Vice President for Public Policy
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Lynn Jenkins
Chief, Analysis and Field Evaluations Branch
Division of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
Joseph Lopes
Legislative Representative, Legislative and Political Affairs Department
American Federation of Government Employees
Alvin Manger
President
Manger Packing
William N. Martin
Chair, Appropriations–Human Resources Committee
North Carolina Senate
John Marzilli
Deputy Associate Commissioner
Regulatory Affairs
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Mark Mina
Deputy Administrator, Field Operations
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Donald J. Musacchio
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jackie Nowell
Director, Occupational Safety and Health Office
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
Perfecto R. Santiago
District Manager
Beltsville District Office, Field Operations
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Richard Searer
President
Oscar Mayer
Alvin D. Sewell
National Joint Counsel Representative
American Federation of Government Employees
Carol Seymour
Assistant Deputy Administrator
District Enforcement Operations
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Caren A. Wilcox
Deputy Under Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Catherine E. Woteki
Under Secretary for Food Safety
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jim Wright
Senior Analyst
Threat Assessment Group
Joe O. Yearous, Jr.
Phoenix Circuit Supervisor, Boulder District Office
Food Safety and Inspection Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Representative, National Association of Federal Veterinarians
SUMMARY
In 1996 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
began to implement substantial changes in the regulation of the meat and
poultry industry. The new regulatory policy was mainly the result of two
factors. One factor was heightened public expectations about food safety,
particularly in the aftermath of a serious outbreak of bacterial food poisoning
in the Pacific Northwest in 1993. The other was increased scientific knowledge
about food-borne disease and its application to prevention of disease by both
USDA and the industry. The new regulatory policy has significantly changed the
roles and responsibilities of both meat inspectors and federal compliance
officers, as well as the daily operating environment in the industry.
Regulators of the meat and poultry industry are required to
be continuously present during production. Since 1996, this unique relationship
between regulators and regulated has combined with the new demands and
expectations of "science-based regulation" and general societal
conditions to create a more stressful work environment for everyone involved.
Increased stress also heightened the potential for violence in the workplace in
the forms of incivility, perceived threats, and actual physical harm.
The murder of two federal compliance officers and a state
investigator at a sausage factory in San Leandro, California, brought these
issues tragically home to all connected with the operation and regulatory
oversight of the U.S. meat and poultry industry. As part of a multifaceted
response to that incident, the Office of the Under Secretary of Agriculture for
Food Safety entered into a cooperative agreement with an endowed foundation,
the Milbank Memorial Fund, to convene and report on a series of discussions on
this topic involving all interested parties.
Principles
These meetings—the first convened to discuss the causes of
workplace violence and potential preventive measures—brought together senior
officials of the department's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and of the
states, executives of large and small plants, leaders of organizations
representing inspectors, compliance officers, plant employees and consumer
organizations, and experts in workplace violence, including a staff member from
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Participants
achieved swift agreement on a common set of principles.
·
The
production of safe and wholesome meat, poultry, and egg products is a goal
shared by all participants.
·
The
people who provide and ensure a safe food supply are valued.
·
Workplace
violence (defined as "any act of physical violence, threats of physical
violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening, disruptive behavior
that occurs at the worksite"; USDA 2001), regardless of its source or its
participants, must be addressed promptly and unambiguously by all parties to
provide a safe and secure work environment.
·
Conflict
must be eliminated, safely managed, or resolved; and early indicators of
potential conflict should be promptly recognized and addressed.
·
Professional
rather than adversarial relationships should be the norm for interactions
between the industry and FSIS.
·
Accurate
and timely reporting, monitoring, discussion, and action on each incident of
workplace violence are essential in order to prevent future incidents.
·
Consumers
and the media need to be made more aware of the complexity, cost, and benefits
of providing safe and wholesome meat, poultry, and egg products, now and in the
future.
Action Agenda
Following two meetings held in early January 2001, the group
reached consensus on the action agenda given below. Some items on this agenda
could be implemented immediately, while others would require more resources or
significant planning and training.
·
Improve
the timing and effectiveness of the appeals process for resolving disputes.
·
Increase
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) and food safety education and
training for industry and department employees in two areas: the scientific
basis for food safety controls, and regulatory processes and procedures. A new
task force is to begin planning pilot projects and considering circumstances
when joint education and training are appropriate.
·
Design
and implement enhanced workplace violence prevention programs with the
following components. A task force is to begin planning pilot projects and
considering circumstances when joint training is appropriate.
- Education and training
- Early warning
- Conflict resolution at the earliest and most effective points of
intervention
- Outside expertise
- Employee involvement
- Routine meetings among local supervisors
- Improved data reporting and analysis
- Increased resources and alternatives available to supervisors and
employees to eliminate and reduce conflict
·
Adopt
the following means of improving the inspection process:
- Frequent, routine sessions involving circuit supervisors,
inspectors,
and plant managers
- Actions to increase consistency in inspection across geographic
areas
- Investment in research and development on objective measurement
of compliance
·
Review
compliance procedures in plant and non-plant settings:
- Identify situations in which advance notice may be
provided.
- Even where no advance notice is possible, inform plant managers
of the opportunity for additional plant personnel to observe the
meeting.
·
Establish
an ombudsman.
·
Review
and improve industry and agency plans for crisis management after critical
incidents and in product recalls.
Current FSIS Actions
USDA officials have already begun to implement related
recommendations from an in-house task force established immediately after the
California tragedy. Consistent with meeting requirements for public
participation in rule-making and policy changes, they told participants in the
meeting that USDA will move promptly on the following additional items, which
are either under way or planned for 2001.
1.
Emphasize
the importance of inspectors' meeting every week with plant representatives and
ensure that supervisors schedule periodic meetings with plant personnel and
inspectors to solve problems early.
2.
Enhance
consistent application of rules and scientific principles through a new review
and correlation activity conducted by the FSIS Technical Service Center.
3.
Expedite
appeals and responses by using new automated inspection scheduling and
reporting software to track appeals from the plant level, through field
supervisors and district offices, to headquarters.
4.
Complete
employee "listening sessions" across the country and fill two new
positions to coordinate efforts at preventing workplace violence.
5.
Conduct
an awareness campaign among police units and associations to explain why
inspectors and compliance officers may require law enforcement backup.
6.
Provide
cellular phones, protective clothing, and new identification cards that more
clearly identify the enforcement role for compliance personnel and recognition
plaques for police units that assist FSIS in high-risk situations.
7.
Recruit
for the ombudsman position.
Planned FSIS Actions
1.
To
equip the workforce to manage conflict and prevent violence, hold work unit
meetings for all inspectors; pilot-test training for compliance officers at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (to be tested jointly with Department
of Transportation HAZMAT investigators); hold four national work unit meetings
for compliance officers; and link into the Food and Drug Administration's fall
2001 satellite broadcast on safety for federal and state officials.
2.
Improve
agency systems by providing new instructions on what to do when firearms are
present in the workplace. Streamline reporting of threats, assaults, and
intimidation, and make sure all employees (not just inspectors) document
incidents. Develop background and intelligence systems to advise employees of
situations that pose risks. Immediately refer for investigation all complaints
of harassment or threats and (if the nature of the offense warrants it) support
application of civil or criminal penalties or suitable notices of warning, as
appropriate.
Initiatives for Professionalism and Violence Prevention
Other agency initiatives under way will support professional
dealings and violence prevention:
1.
The
FSIS Training and Education Committee (TEC 2001), responsible for planning
future education and training, will plan joint training with the regulated
industries and ways to equip inspection managers with the skills to ensure
fair, consistent enforcement actions.
2.
The
Workforce of the Future initiative, already under way, addresses the scientific
and regulatory skills, including communication skills, needed to promote
cooperative resolution of problems.
3.
The
FSIS Next Steps initiative will seek public comments to develop ideas for
improving the processes applied by inspectors and compliance officers to
resolve disagreements and eliminate sources of friction.
FSIS is also actively considering
undertaking workplace violence initiatives with the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health that can be tested jointly with food industry
companies. USDA will identify steps and activities particularly as they relate
to assistance from the Milbank Memorial Fund.
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of discussions conducted
in January 2001 about conflict and violence in the food safety workplace.
Although the incidence of violence at work is increasing in both the public and
private sectors, the murders of two federal compliance officers and a state
investigator at a sausage factory in San Leandro, California, brought this
issue tragically home to all those connected with the operation and regulatory
oversight of the U.S. meat and poultry industry. As part of a multifaceted
response to that incident, the Office of the Under Secretary of Agriculture for
Food Safety and the Milbank Memorial Fund convened a series of discussions on
this topic.
The discussions had three purposes. First, they would
convene under neutral auspices senior decision makers from labor, management,
and large and small processors in order to identify, understand, and diminish
tensions created by changing regulatory expectations and an increasingly
competitive environment. The second purpose was to identify optimal practices
and to devise strategies to improve the work environment, relationships,
communication, and regulatory results, and hence to improve public health throughout
the country. Finally, these discussions were intended to yield a document to
inform the department's new leadership and other individuals and groups with
interests in workplace violence prevention, particularly in the meat, poultry,
and egg products industry.
The report is organized as follows.
The next section provides background information to place in context the
discussions that took place in January 2001. It describes the incidence of
workplace violence in general and as reported by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), the events leading to convening of two meetings under the
auspices of the Fund, and the factors that participants in the meetings
identified as leading to increased tensions in the meat, poultry, and egg
products industry. The third section identifies the principles unanimously
agreed on by the leaders present at the meetings, which participants soon began
to describe as "dialogues." This is followed by the proposed action
agenda and a description of subsequent steps to be taken.
BACKGROUND
Homicide is the third leading cause of fatal occupational
injury in the United States. Nearly 1,000 workers are murdered each year in the
workplace, and 1.5 million assaulted. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), workplace homicides in
1999 fell to the lowest level since the fatality census's inception in 1992.
Job-related homicides totaled 645 in 1999, a 10 percent drop from the 1998
total and a 40 percent decline from the 1,080 homicides that occurred in 1994,
which had the highest count in the eight-year period (Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2000). According to data from the National Crime Victimization
Surveys (NCVS) for 1992–1996, in each of those years, U.S. residents experienced
more than 2 million violent victimizations while they were working. The most
common type of workplace violent crime was simple assault, with an estimated
average of 1.5 million victimizations occurring each year. On average during
the period 1992–1996, while at work U.S. residents also suffered 395,000
aggravated assaults, 51,000 rapes and sexual assaults, 84,000 robberies, and
1,000 homicides (Warchol 1996).
Incidents of workplace violence have been reported in all
segments of the economy, in both the public and private sectors. The FSIS
convened a workplace violence prevention task force in 1998, and the agency has
been collecting information on incidents of workplace violence for several
years. The number of incidents reported within the agency increased from 62 in
1999 to 82 in 2000 (Food Safety Inspection Service 2001).
In June 2000, two FSIS compliance officers and a California
state inspector were murdered while on duty at a sausage factory in San
Leandro, California. The owner of this small plant and retail operation was
arrested and charged in the case.
As part of a multifaceted response to the murders of the
compliance officers in California, the Office of the Under Secretary for Food
Safety entered into a cooperative agreement with an endowed foundation, the
Milbank Memorial Fund, to convene and report on a series of discussions on this
topic involving all interested parties. (For the text of this agreement, see
the Appendix.) The agreement specified the manner in which participants in these
discussions would be identified and provided a mechanism to prepare for the
initial meeting.
In a conference call meeting on November 22, 2000, an
initial group of invitees to the first meeting established the agenda and
identified additional participants. (The list of participants appears following
the Foreword to this report.) Following consultation, the Fund selected neutral
co-chairs: Kathryn Higgins, vice president for public policy of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation and former deputy secretary of labor; and
Senator William N. Martin, chairman of the Appropriations—Human Resources
Committee of the North Carolina Senate.
Participants in the first meeting identified the following
potential causes of workplace violence in the meat, poultry, and egg products
industry environment:
·
The
unique regulatory framework for the industry.
·
Increased
scientific knowledge and public expectations about food safety.
·
Societal
factors that increase tension in the workplace.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
Unique Regulatory Framework
Since the enactment of the Federal Meat Inspection Act in
1906—the year of publication of The Jungle, Upton Sinclair's muckraking
exposé of the meatpacking industry—the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
operated under a unique regulatory framework. In no other industry are
regulators required to be continuously present in order for the regulated
facility to operate. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) carries out
these USDA responsibilities. A central requirement of the 1906 meat inspection
law was that federal employees must continuously inspect and find unadulterated
every slaughtered animal carcass and processed product sold across state lines.
Together, the 1906 law, a 1957 statute requiring similar poultry inspection,
and a 1970 law covering egg products resulted in a system of
"organoleptic"—smell, touch, and sight—examinations by FSIS
inspectors at all businesses that slaughter animals or birds, break eggs for
manufacturing, or process resulting meat, poultry, and egg products. More than
7,000 FSIS and 1,300 state inspectors and veterinarians are engaged in this
work of in-plant inspection. Each year, they inspect more than 6 billion
poultry carcasses and 125 million livestock carcasses—mostly beef, pork and
lamb—before and after slaughter. Enforcement activities are carried out at
around 9,000 inspected plants and, if required, at any of several hundred
thousand other locations where foods are held, transported, further processed,
or sold. Both FSIS and states that have programs equal to federal standards
have a small number of compliance officers (COs) who are responsible for
monitoring the food chain and preventing, detecting, and documenting violations
of law. The close interaction between the regulators and the regulated creates
many opportunities for tensions, conflicts, and disagreements to develop.
Increased Scientific Knowledge and Public Expectations about
Food Safety
Societal intolerance of problems in the food supply
increased in reaction to several significant outbreaks of food-borne illness in
the early 1990s. The most prominent involved the death of several children and
the hospitalization of hundreds of people in the Pacific Northwest in early
1993 after they ate hamburgers tainted with pathogenic E. coli bacteria.
This crisis precipitated a substantial revision of the federal approach to the
regulatory oversight of meat and poultry (Purdum 1996). The new rules, phased
in over several years, had their genesis in the food industry in the 1960s,
when the Pillsbury Company initiated a preventive control system called Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP), at the request of and in conjunction
with NASA. This scientific innovation responded to a concern that any
food-borne illness resulting from contamination of astronauts' rations by
bacterial and viral pathogens, toxins, and chemical or physical hazards could
result in a disaster in space; a simple ailment like diarrhea would cause major
problems. HACCP was instituted to minimize this risk by replacing traditional
organoleptic monitoring and limited end-product testing with a system of
preventive controls to ensure that the foods produced were as close as possible
to 100 percent free of bacterial or viral pathogens or other hazards (Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 2000).
The movement toward science-based regulation by FSIS since
1996 placed additional stress on relationships within its unique regulatory
framework. The new regulations require plants to develop HACCP plans as well as
to design and implement written Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures
(SSOPs) and microbial testing programs. These requirements have resulted in a
fundamental shift in the role of the regulator from direct involvement in the
operations of the plant to regulatory oversight and verification of actions
designed and implemented by the industry. Inspectors moved from finding
problems and fixing them to determining whether or not the plant's systems
result in safe products. Compliance officers in noncompliant plants also face
new responsibilities that heretofore were largely outside their daily activity.
The rule changes also brought significant new challenges,
responsibilities, and anxieties for the management and staff of large, small,
and very small plants. Thus, changing roles and responsibilities, fear of the
unknown, and the potential for significant disruption intensified stress for
many of the parties involved in the implementation of these changes.
Societal Factors Increasing Tension
Factors in society at large influence
the level of workplace violence in every industry. Domestic problems, economic
pressures, and other causes of psychological stress cannot be left behind at
the plant gate. Regulators, workers, and management cannot prevent these
problems from entering the workplace. In addition, a certain segment of the
population harbors strong animosity toward authority in general and the federal
government in particular.
PRINCIPLES
Participants in the dialogues represented the diversity of
interests present in the meat, poultry, and egg products workplace, along with
outside experts and other interested parties. They swiftly reached agreement on
a common set of principles to guide future action:
·
The
production of safe and wholesome meat, poultry, and egg products is a goal
shared by all participants. Despite their differing roles, all participants acknowledged special
pride in sharing responsibility for providing American consumers with safe and
wholesome products.
·
The
people who provide and ensure a safe food supply are valued. Senior officials in the department
and executives of large and small processors stressed their absolute commitment
to providing a safe work environment for their employees.
·
Workplace
violence must be addressed promptly and unambiguously by all parties to provide
a safe and secure work environment. All participants endorsed the view that incidents of
workplace violence should be dealt with swiftly and seriously. The general
consensus of all agency and industry representatives was that there should be
zero tolerance of incidents of workplace violence, regardless of their source
or whether they involve personnel from USDA, industry, or both.
·
Conflict
must be eliminated, safely managed, or resolved; and early indicators of
potential conflict should be promptly recognized and addressed. Although the representatives
recognized that some tension is inherent in the meat, poultry, and egg products
workplace, it must be managed so that it does not escalate into violence. Preventive
measures to identify and respond to incipient tension should be implemented.
·
Professional
rather than adversarial relationships should be the norm of interaction between
the industry and FSIS.
Each of the parties understands and respects the particular responsibilities
that the other has in providing safe and wholesome products. Differences must
be handled in a professional manner, not an adversarial one. Greater
opportunities for education, information, and discussion involving all the
various parties help to foster such understanding.
·
Accurate
and timely reporting, monitoring, discussion, and action on each incident of
workplace violence are essential in order to prevent future incidents. The first step in addressing
workplace violence is the accurate identification of incidents, which will
require improving the current system of reporting to eliminate under- and
over-reporting. Reported threats or actual assaults must then be investigated
and acted on.
·
Consumers
and the media need to be made more aware of the complexity, cost, and benefits
of providing safe and wholesome meat, poultry, and egg products, now and in the
future. Most of the
general public and the media take a safe food supply for granted and may become
aware of the difficulty of maintaining food safety only in the rare event of a
major outbreak of food-borne illness. There is little appreciation for the
sophisticated systems that are in place to generate safe products for hundreds
of millions of Americans every day.
ACTION
AGENDA
At the conclusion of the meetings, the participants
identified a series of potential actions that are likely to reduce the threat
of violence and to cope with future incidents that may occur. Items included in
this action agenda address issues of workplace violence across the spectrum,
including incidents internal to either the agency or the industry, and those
that involve agency and industry personnel together. The list includes some
suggestions that can be implemented immediately and others that would require
more resources or significant planning and training.
Improve the Timing and Effectiveness of the Appeals Process
Quickly resolving appeals of noncompliance reports (NRs)
from inspectors can eliminate one source of workplace tension. Inspectors may
feel compelled to continue to issue NRs on the same problem until it is
resolved. Some inspectors may inappropriately perceive the filing of an appeal
as questioning their judgment or authority. Industry managers expect appeals to
be considered fairly and expeditiously. Among the actions suggested were: (1)
an audit of appeals to determine if either the NR or the appeal is
inflammatory; (2) regular reports on the length of time taken to resolve
appeals and establishment of benchmark standards for specific times of response
to appeals at all levels; and (3) training to improve the writing of NRs by
inspectors and of appeals by industry.
Increase HACCP and Food Safety Education and Training for
Industry and Department Employees
Distinct from education and training specific to workplace
violence prevention (see below), the participants identified a need for
improved education and training of personnel in two areas. The first is the
scientific basis of food safety. With a greater focus on pathogen reduction,
workers in the meat, poultry, and egg products industry and government need
education and training in the changing state of knowledge and its application
in slaughter and processing. Second, as the regulatory model evolves, updated
training of agency and industry personnel is needed to translate changed
expectations and thereby to reduce uncertainty. A new task force drawn from all
interested parties could begin planning pilot training projects and considering
circumstances where joint education and training are appropriate.
Design and Implement Enhanced Programs to Prevent Workplace
Violence
Industry and FSIS should develop and continuously evaluate
effective programs to prevent workplace violence, with the following
components:
·
Ongoing
education and training of management and employees.
·
A
system to detect and address inappropriate behavior and situations before they
rise to the level of threats and violence.
·
Mechanisms
designed to resolve conflicts at the lowest level of the organization.
·
Outside
expertise, as needed, to provide independent, knowledgeable assistance.
·
Involvement
of employees in design and implementation.
·
Regular
meetings between local FSIS officials and plant supervisors.
·
Improved
data reporting and analysis.
·
Increased
resources and alternatives available to supervisors and employees to reduce
conflict.
The group further suggested that a new task force drawn from
the interested parties could begin planning pilot projects and considering
circumstances where joint training of industry and FSIS personnel is
appropriate. Furthermore, the group supported evaluation of these activities
through a collaborative effort with NIOSH, an organization with particular
skill in providing technical assistance and input and then evaluating the impact
of any changes made.
Improve the Inspection Process
Short-term and long-term modifications in the manner in
which inspections are conducted could reduce tensions and increase consistency.
The following actions were suggested:
·
Frequent,
routine sessions involving circuit supervisors, inspectors, and plant managers
to discuss the workplace environment. (Examples of such dialogues already under
way include quarterly meetings sponsored by the New England Government
Relations Committee of the North American Meat Processors [NAMP] association,
which bring together New England's FSIS circuit supervisors and managers of
NAMP member companies.)
·
Actions
to increase consistency in inspection across geographic areas.
·
Investment
in research and development for objective tools to measure compliance.
Participants agreed that technology needs to be developed and implemented that
more quickly and efficiently monitors and reports on the safety of the final
product.
Review Compliance Procedures
The role of compliance officers has likewise changed with
the new regulatory model. The participants suggested the examination of
procedures employed in both in-plant and non-plant settings. The goal is to
reduce unnecessary tension over the involvement of compliance officers. Potential
actions include:
·
Identify
situations in which advance notice of compliance visits may be provided.
·
Even
where advance notice cannot be provided, inform plant management of the
opportunity to allow additional plant personnel to observe the meeting.
Establish an Ombudsman
The appointment of an ombudsman would provide another means
of reducing unnecessary tension and mistrust. This office would offer industry
the opportunity to petition independently for redress of perceived problems
associated with the implementation of the new regulatory system.
Review and Improve Crisis Management Plans
Both industry and FSIS should actively review and update
plans to address crises in the event that preventive measures fail and
workplace violence erupts. Management at all levels within the industry and
FSIS should be prepared to take immediate and appropriate steps, separately and
jointly. Similarly, processors of all sizes should evaluate their response
plans for occasions when they are confronted with a recall or other serious
regulatory action.
USDA officials have already begun to implement related
recommendations made by an in-house task force established immediately after
the California tragedy. Consistent with meeting requirements for public
participation in rule-making and policy changes, USDA told participants at the
meeting that FSIS will move promptly on the following additional items that are
either under way or are planned for 2001:
1.
Emphasize
the importance of inspectors' meeting every week with plant representatives and
ensure that FSIS supervisors schedule periodic meetings with plant managers and
inspectors to solve problems early.
2.
Enhance
the consistent application of rules and scientific principles through a new
review and correlation activity conducted by the FSIS Technical Service Center.
3.
Expedite
appeals and responses by using new automated inspection scheduling and
reporting software to track appeals from the plant level, through field
supervisors and the districts, to headquarters.
4.
Complete
employee "listening sessions" across the country and fill two new
positions to coordinate efforts to prevent workplace violence.
5.
Conduct
an awareness campaign among individual police units and associations to explain
why inspectors and compliance officers may require law enforcement backup.
6.
Provide
cellular phones, protective clothing, and new identification cards that more
clearly identify the enforcement role for compliance personnel and recognition
plaques for police units that assist FSIS in high-risk situations.
7.
Recruit
for the ombudsman position.
FSIS has plans to complete the following actions in 2001:
1.
Better
equip the workforce to manage conflict and prevent violence by the following
stems: hold work unit meetings for all inspectors; pilot-test training for
compliance officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (to be
tested jointly with DOT HAZMAT investigators); hold four national work unit
meetings for compliance officers; and link into the Food and Drug
Administration's fall 2001 satellite broadcast on safety for federal and state
officials.
2.
Improve
agency systems with new instructions on what to do when firearms are present in
the workplace. Streamline reporting of threats, assaults, and intimidation, and
make sure all employees (not just inspectors) document incidents. Develop
background and intelligence systems to advise employees of situations that pose
risks. Immediately refer all complaints of harassment or threats for
investigation and (depending on the nature of the offense) support application
of civil or criminal penalties or suitable notices of warning, as appropriate.
The following agency initiatives, already under way, will
support professional relationships and violence prevention:
1.
The
FSIS Training and Education Committee (TEC 2001), responsible for future
education and training activities, will plan joint training with the regulated
industries and will address ways to equip inspection managers with the skills
to ensure fair, consistent enforcement actions.
2.
The Workforce
of the Future initiative is now addressing the scientific and regulatory
skills, including communication skills, needed to promote cooperative
resolution of problems.
3.
The
FSIS Next Steps initiative will seek public comment to develop ideas for improving
the procedures used by inspectors and compliance officers to resolve
disagreements and eliminate sources of friction.
FSIS is also actively exploring the possibility of
undertaking, in collaboration with the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, initiatives against workplace violence that can be tested jointly
with food industry companies.
USDA will identify steps and
activities particularly as they relate to assistance from the Milbank Memorial
Fund.
NEXT
STEPS
At the conclusion of the second meeting, the participants
unanimously agreed that the meetings had exceeded their expectations. At the
same time, they acknowledged the challenge of translating the positive results
of the dialogues into long-term reductions in actual and potential acts of
workplace violence. In order to begin a further discussion of the principles
and action agenda developed through these dialogues, the participants agreed to
the following next steps:
·
A
subset of the group should review and improve the draft report and then send it
for final review to the other participants.
·
Industry,
consumer, and labor representatives pledged to request Secretary Veneman to
accord high priority to addressing workplace violence and especially to
preventing it.
·
FSIS
staff will examine the action items presented at the dialogues and identify
those that can be developed and implemented quickly and those that require
budgetary action or changes in law or regulation.
·
The
participants will explore mechanisms to achieve these goals:
- Move these discussions into the public arena.
- Design, fund, and operate pilot programs.
- Translate experience from pilot programs to broader regional and national
settings.
·
Within
six months, participants in this dialogue will meet with representatives of the
new federal administration.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2000. Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries (CFOI). Updated August 17, 2000. Available at http://stats.bls.gov/special.requests/ocwc/oshwc/cfoi/cfnr0006.pdf
(accessed February 16, 2001).
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Division of
HACCP Programs. 2000. History of HACCP. Washington, D.C: U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. Available at http://www.webcom.com/mars/haccp/haccp_explain.html#intro
(accessed February 16, 2001).
Food Safety Inspection Service. 2001. Preliminary Second
Annual Workplace Violence Prevention Report. Washington, D.C.
Purdum, T.S. 1996. Meat Inspections Face Overhaul, First in
Nearly a Century. New York Times (July 7): A1.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. The USDA Handbook
on Workplace Violence Prevention and Response. Available at http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/violence/wpv.htm
(accessed February 16, 2001).
Warchol, G. 1996. Workplace
Violence, 1992–96. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 168634.
Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wv96.txt
(accessed February 16, 2001).
APPENDIX
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY
OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND THE MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND
Whereas,
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety of the United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA") and the Milbank Memorial Fund (the
"Fund"), hereinafter referred to as the "Parties," are
jointly interested in problems confronted by employees of Federal regulatory
agencies, in general, and in issues involving conflict and violence affecting
employees involved in regulation of the food supply, in particular;
Whereas,
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety oversees the Food Safety and
Inspection Service ("FSIS"), the USDA agency responsible for ensuring
that the United States commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is
safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged;
Whereas,
the Fund is an endowed national foundation that engages in nonpartisan
analysis, study, research, and communication on significant issues in health
policy and has experience in working with Government officials to help inform
discussions of controversial issues;
Whereas,
a dialogue regarding food safety, conflict and violence affecting employees
involved in food safety regulation, and general problems confronted by
employees of Federal regulatory agencies, hosted and supervised by an entity
that is not an active participant in the regulation of food safety or in the
food safety industry or labor force, will serve a mutual interest of the
Parties in furthering the safety of the United States food supply.
Therefore,
the Parties agree to the following:
ARTICLE 1
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
1. The purpose of this cooperative agreement,
hereinafter referred to as the "agreement," is to establish a
framework for cooperation between the Parties with respect to the conduct of a
dialogue regarding food safety, conflict and violence affecting employees
involved in food safety regulation, and general problems confronted by
employees of Federal regulatory agencies. It is the intent of the Parties to
work together in mutually supporting ways to conduct this dialogue.
2. The Parties enter this agreement by authority of
section 716 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
Pub. L. No. 106–78.
ARTICLE 2
COORDINATION AND COOPERATION
1. Cooperation under this agreement shall be in
accordance with applicable statutes and regulations, including USDA internal
regulations and policies.
2. Each Party shall designate a representative to
coordinate cooperation between the Parties with respect to the conduct of the
dialogue identified in article 1, section 1.
3. The designated representative of each Party will
participate in a conference call to plan a series of meetings that will foster
the dialogue identified in article 1, section 1. The Parties agree to identify
cooperatively additional individuals to participate in the conference call. The
Parties anticipate that these additional individuals may include leaders of the
food safety industry and its unions, FSIS officials, officials of the executive
branch of the Federal Government, and State legislators. The Parties anticipate
that no more than eight individuals, including the designated representatives
of the Parties, will participate in the conference call. During the conference
call, these individuals will recommend to the Fund potential agenda topics for
and potential participants in the series of meetings.
4. If the Parties determine that doing so would
facilitate the planning of the series of meetings, the Parties will hold more
than one conference call or will conduct other planning discussions with
individuals with backgrounds similar to those discussed in the preceding
section.
5. The Office of the Under Secretary may suggest agenda
topics for and potential participants in the series of meetings. The Fund will
make the final determinations as to the agenda for and the participants in the
series of meetings; however, the Fund agrees that a reasonable number of USDA
or FSIS officials suggested by the Office of the Under Secretary will be
selected to participate in the series of meetings.
6. The Fund will conduct and supervise all meetings held
in furtherance of the dialogue identified in article 1, section 1. Employees
and officials of the Office of the Under Secretary and FSIS will participate in
meetings held in furtherance of this dialogue, but neither they nor any USDA
employee or official will be entitled to any greater control over the conduct
of these meetings than any other participant who is actively involved in the
regulation of food safety or in the food safety industry or labor force. No
office or agency of USDA will attempt to obtain consensus advice or
recommendations from the participants in these meetings.
7. The Fund will draft and publish at least one document
representing Fund analysis of or research regarding the issues discussed during
the series of meetings outlined in this article. Any document produced by the
Fund pursuant to this agreement will state expressly that the document
represents the independent analysis and recommendations of the Fund and is a
publication of the Fund, not of USDA or any office or agency thereof.
8. At least 20 working days prior to public release of
any document produced pursuant to this agreement, the Fund will provide to the
Office of the Under Secretary an advance copy of the document. In order for
such a document to present the independent analysis of the Fund, the Office of
the Under Secretary will not suggest revisions to the document other than those
necessary to correct any misstatements of USDA policies or actions. For the
same reason, the Office of the Under Secretary anticipates that the Fund will
not allow any active participant in the regulation of food safety or in the
food safety industry or labor force to suggest revisions to a document other
than those necessary to correct misstatements.
9. The Fund will distribute any document it produces
pursuant to this agreement as widely as possible and in both electronic and
print formats. The Office of the Under Secretary may suggest methods of
distribution for and potential recipients of such a document; however, the Fund
will make the final determination as to how the document is distributed.
10. To the extent possible, the Fund will attempt to
ensure that, when a document produced pursuant to this agreement is reproduced
by the Fund or other persons, it is reproduced in a manner that accurately
reflects the content of the document. The Office of the Under Secretary and
USDA shall have Fund permission to reproduce, use, prepare works derived from,
and authorize others to reproduce any document that the Fund produces pursuant
to this agreement.
ARTICLE 3
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
1. The Fund agrees to:
A.
Conduct and supervise the series of meetings outlined in article 2.
B. Provide analysis, study, and research regarding the topics discussed
in the series of meetings.
C. Prepare, publish, and distribute at least one document representing
Fund analysis of or research regarding the issues
discussed during the
series of meetings.
D. Fund its participation in activities pursuant to this agreement.
E. Pay non-Government costs of any meetings held pursuant to this
agreement, travel costs for non-Government participants
in these
meetings, and publishing and distribution costs for any
document produced pursuant to this agreement.
2. USDA and the Office of the Under Secretary agree to:
A.
Participate in the dialogue identified in article 1, section 1, including
the series of meetings outlined in article 2, to the
extent practicable
and inaccordance with applicable laws and
regulations.
B. Fund Departmental participation in activities pursuant to this agreement
subject to the availability of funds and in accordance
with
applicable laws and regulations.
ARTICLE 4
EFFECTIVE DATE, AMENDMENT, AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
1. This agreement will become effective upon signature
of both Parties and shall remain in effect for one year.
2. This agreement may be amended by mutual written
agreement of the authorized representatives of the Parties.
3. This agreement may be terminated at any time by
either Party upon 10 days written notice to the other Party.
Executed
by:
___________________________ ___________________________
CATHERINE E. WOTEKI DANIEL
M. FOX
Under Secretary for Food
Safety President
United States Department of Agriculture Milbank
Memorial Fund
(To request a bound
copy of this report, click here.
To see a complete list of Milbank reports, click here.
Be sure to specify which report you want,
your name, mailing address, and phone number.)
Milbank Memorial Fund
645 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(c) 2001 Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed national foundation
that engages in nonpartisan analysis, study, research, and communication on
significant issues in health policy. In the Fund's own publications, in reports
or books it publishes with other organizations, and in articles it commissions
for publication by other organizations, the Fund endeavors to maintain the
highest standards for accuracy and fairness. Opinions expressed by individual
authors, however, do not necessarily reflect opinions or factual determinations
of the Fund.
This report is a publication of the Fund, not of USDA or any
office or agency thereof, consistent with the terms of a cooperative agreement,
the full text of which appears as an appendix to this report.
This file may be redistributed electronically as long as it
remains wholly intact, including this notice and copyright. This file must not
be redistributed in hard-copy form. The Fund will freely distribute this
document in its original published form on request.
|
|
