AR-News: Could Terrorists Corrupt Canadian Meat?

[Barry Kent MacKay]

Source: http://www.meatcommerceprocessing.ca/feature.html  

The notion of a terrorist threat against the meat industry may seem 
far-fetched-the stuff of B-movie science fiction-but before three years 
ago, so was the idea of planes used as flying bombs. In the wake from 
the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States, governments and 
businesses have been forced to look at the links that bind them with 
the public, with a keen eye open for weak spots to be strengthened. As 
a result, the perceived threat of terrorism has had an effect on 
Canada's meat industries both directly and indirectly. In dealing with 
new challenges, the industry has a chance to buttress its safety 
regimens.
	 
The realm of what is possible has definitely broadened since the World 
Trade Center attack, but even before then, one didn't have to rely on 
make-believe to think of potential terrorist threats against the meat 
industry. The possibility of terrorist actions by animal activists had 
the industry already on guard.

"We had some animal-activist activities years ago," says Phil Boyd, 
executive director of the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency (CTMA), 
remembering threats made only two days before Christmas 1994 in 
Vancouver. Letters from the Animal Rights Militia were received at 
Safeway and Save On Foods stores, claiming rat poison had been injected 
into a number of turkeys. The threat was chalked up as a hoax after 
nothing turned up and no one got sick, but tens of thousands of birds 
were destroyed, causing about $1 million in losses, according to the 
1998 Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) document, Single 
Issue Terrorism.

The Canadian Meat Council's Larry Campbell remembers the Vancouver 
threats as being made by someone "looking for a cause," but he knows 
causes can be abnormally compelling for some people. The Farm Animal 
Revenge Militia made similar threats in the United States in 1993, and, 
in 1995, the Animal Liberation Front mailed 42 letter bombs in Britain. 
Those cases are years old, but Campbell is still wary. "You don't want 
to rule out anything as a possibility," he says. "We're dealing with 
safety, health and lives." Indeed, CSIS has not forgotten. In its 2002 
public report, it notes domestic extremism-as one of four regions of 
terrorist activity in Canada-as the response of several potential 
bodies, "including, but not limited to, certain elements of 
animal-rights, anti-globalization and white-supremacist groups."

CSIS response
Nicole Currier, speaking for CSIS, says the agency's role regarding a 
potential threat would be to see it coming through intelligence 
gathering, and to issue warnings or notice to relevant government 
agencies. Depending on the nature of the threat and the particulars of 
the situation, CSIS would contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 
Transport Canada or Health Canada. In instances of terrorism through 
tainted meat supplies, Currier says the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
(CFIA) would also likely get a call from CSIS.

CFIA response
The CFIA is in charge of getting tainted food out of the market once 
the offending product has been identified. The CFIA's systems, 
including in-plant inspectors, are formidable, being given unofficial 
credit for the fast tracking that Canadian food products are said to 
have enjoyed before border rules and regulations were tightened in the 
fall of 2001. While identifying tainted food is a primary concern of 
the CFIA, however, it is bound by unavoidable practical limitations.

"It's very theoretical," says CFIA spokesman Alain Charette. The agency 
cannot test every shipment out of a plant. Chance plays a large part in 
locating a tainted food source if CSIS cannot provide warning and 
something does manage to get through the inspection regimen. Charette 
says one way for CFIA to find out about possibly tainted food is from 
health practitioners or officials who notice unusual illness or 
patterns of illness in patients. Alternatively, somebody might see or 
smell something odd and tell CFIA directly, but Charette admits the 
CFIA is unlikely to be the first resource to come to mind when a 
restaurant or grocery store customer seeks to complain about a 
suspicious cut of meat.

"Sometimes it takes a while to identify [the offending product] and 
sometimes we find it right away," says Charette, referring to sources 
of past recall announcements. In the event of suspected tampering, he 
says the CFIA notifies the RCMP or local police immediately, offering 
support to "get at the problem and contain it." Making the decision to 
recall is not a simple one, though. Even supposing a few tainted 
turkeys turn up in New Brunswick, for example, CFIA cannot simply 
recall all turkey products in the province. The specific source of the 
taint still has to be located. Good records at all the supply points 
are a sure way to make the process smoother, Charette says. "The 
distribution of information is very important to our investigations," 
says Charette, adding that a thorough trail of batch numbers and 
shipment dates of products from plants, distributors and retailers will 
narrow any investigation CFIA undertakes.

As far back as 1991, the agency's Food Safety Enhancement Program 
(FSEP) began promoting safety audits and planning based on the hazard 
analysis critical control point (HACCP) model. In November 2004, after 
a year of voluntary compliance, FSEP compliance will be a condition of 
registration with the agency. Non-compliance will result in the loss of 
CFIA registration, which means meat exporters cannot conduct business 
legally. While binding regulations of this nature are often met with 
groans, most parties have adapted without complaint to FSEP.

Industry response
"We're all on the same page here," says Robin Horel, president and CEO 
of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council (CPEPC), noting a 
majority of the council's members support FSEP's security model and 
already meet its requirements. "Awareness has been highlighted," he 
says, "but there hasn't been a great change. Safety's already a big 
issue."

Mark Cator was happy to show off the system already in place at 
Cardinal Meat Specialists in Mississauga, Ont. when the regulations 
were first introduced in 1999. The co-owner of this burger and pork rib 
manufacturing company claims the first FSEP-compliant registration ever 
given. He says one key to a safe system is knowing who comes to and 
goes from the plant. A visual verification is needed before visitors 
are buzzed in, and the company has revisited its third-party staffing 
arrangement to check citizenship or immigration status, to ensure all 
potential employees are legitimate.

A secure feeling about the safety of Canada's meat is common throughout 
the industry. Boyd feels secure, too, but the turkey-marketing agency 
still found room for a little improvement. The 1997 document, Raising 
Turkeys, Producing Food has just been sent to the CFIA for technical 
approval after a rewrite. A major theme in the new version is 
traceability-codifying a trail for a given animal from feedlot to store 
shelf. This reflects a more formal approach shown throughout the turkey 
trade to guidelines regarding records keeping, feed selection and plant 
access.

"It'd be foolish to close your eyes, but I haven't felt compelled to 
put up the barbed wire either," says Cator, suggesting that security 
measures are in no small measure an answer to American perceptions of 
threat.

American response, American trade
Sameer Ahmed, at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International 
Trade, says the U.S. border blockade erected last year against Canadian 
beef after the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in 
one animal from an Alberta herd is an example of how countries are free 
to close their borders to Canadian meat under certain conditions. That 
blockade was an issue of animal health rather than terrorist 
motivation, but Ahmed acknowledges the spectre of a political attack 
via Canadian meat exports would likewise sunder trade patterns. "The 
idea that there might be a security issue involved, wherein animals or 
food were to become infected in some way-that would certainly allow 
countries to close their borders to Canadian foodstuffs," he says.

There is no question that Canadian trade in general has been affected 
by the U.S. response to perceived terrorist threats. "It has become a 
trade issue, it has become an economic issue, an agricultural issue and 
an industry issue," says Ahmed, noting the U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection now requires 24 hours of advance notice for cargo 
crossing the border.

The CFIA approval is already required for any meat products headed for 
export, but the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has 
still increased scrutiny of meat crossing the U.S. border. After 
getting through customs with the required notice, meat shipments are 
checked again by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
at import houses across America. Random testing is included in a 
regimen that matches pre-delivered paperwork to the items that 
inspectors see. A system that was already fairly tight was strengthened 
in 2002 after the USDA received $1.5 million in new funding dedicated 
to inspections of imported meat, and began co-ordinating biosecurity 
efforts with the new Homeland Security office.

A word of caution
The USDA appears satisfied with current safety levels, but the 
department is still taking active measures to revisit the situation. 
Last year, the USDA conducted a vulnerability assessment of its 
domestic suppliers. A list of the things a terrorist would likely use 
to taint meat was identified, but a USDA spokesperson was reluctant to 
identify them. (As Horel of CPEPC notes, "There are a lot of places in 
the chain where someone could strike.") The USDA launched another 
vulnerability assessment in the autumn of 2003, with U.S. meat imports 
under scrutiny. Industry players have reason to hope for a positive 
review. Strict enforcement of current rules is altogether different 
from brand new ones.

Doris Valade, president of Malabar Super Spice in Burlington, Ont., 
says recently enacted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations 
will be a burden for Canadians exporting food under the FDA's watch. 
Products containing more than three per cent raw or two per cent cooked 
meat are not affected directly, but Valade's words are nothing if not a 
testament to vigilance. The new regulations encourage the kind of 
record-keeping Charette espouses, but Valade estimates the paperwork 
alone will be reason for some FDA-regulated exporters to reconsider 
business in the United States.

"It does bring a new level of safety," she says, but adds that American 
business will have to be significant to account for the costs and 
challenges the legislation will bring. "If you're doing business in the 
States, you'll have to go all the way," she says, worried that 
American-bound exports will be for big companies only. She says higher 
insurance premiums were already a part of the new built-in cost of 
trade with America. "Now there is going to be a border cost we have to 
factor in." Valade hopes other Canadian companies will join hers in 
further exploring emerging markets, as Malabar looks to the Philippines 
and Barbados to make up any lost American business.

Regulatory trade challenges aside, our awareness of what is possible 
has changed. As Horel notes, there are many potential weak links in the 
chain, and it is not unthinkable to imagine nefarious exploitation "How 
about suppliers that get in the back door?" Horel asks, wanting to see 
the CFIA regulations reaching back further to farms and even feed 
producers. Such a move would indeed enhance the safety of Canadians as 
well as that of all other people who eat our meat. "Companies proactive 
enough to meet the guidelines have to be a pretty high-quality group," 
says Cator, but we have to also remember that our own perceptions are 
not the only ones affecting our policies. One way or another, we are 
reminded that vigilance is the price of freedom.

Ian Tizzard is a freelance writer for Meat Commerce & Processing 
magazine.

____________________________

  Barry Kent MacKay
  Canadian Representative 
  ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE 
  www.api4animals.org