Product Certification and Transparency ~Dr. Patrick Webb, Director Swine Health ~Jarrod Sutton, AVP Channel Marketing
A new video C:\Users\suttonj\Desktop\zen_mp4.mp4
Product Certification and Transparency Healthy pigs = Safe Pork Confidence in Consistency Consistent messaging is Essential
Pre-Harvest Traceability Where we have been & where we are going.
Pork Industry Commitment U.S. pork producers are committed to the principle that premises identification, animal identification and recordkeeping is the cornerstone for animal health, disease surveillance and rapid and accurate preharvest traceability for animal health purposes. 5
Been there, done that Past pre-harvest ID systems for livesotck were linked to: Specific disease programs, and/or Cattle brucellosis Scrapie Pseudorabies requirements for interstate commerce of live animals 6
Mandatory Identification of Swine 9 CFR 71.19 Identification of Swine in Interstate Commerce Codified since the late 80 s Integral to PRV eradication Industry recognized importance of enhancing pre-harvest traceability 7
Interstate movement example 8
Movement to harvest example Market Sow s and Boars Market Hogs
The continuing saga of ID Glossary NIAA National Institutes of Animal Agriculture USAHA United States Animal Health Association USAIP United States Animal Identification Plan NAIS National Animal Identification System ADT Animal Disease Traceability SAHO State Animal Health Official 10
Pork Industry Position on ID Industry supports a mandatory ID system that is publicly funded and species specific. Industry supports a state held system as the primary interface for producers Industry supports movement data to be captured and maintained by producers, production systems, and markets and then reported as required.
USAIP to NAIS to ADT 2002 NIAA Taskforce Developed a national ID proposal 2002 USAHA Directed USDA to develop a plan 2003 USDA submitted USAIP to USAHA Established framework & standards 12
USAIP to NAIS to ADT 2004 USAIP morphed into NAIS Species groups were to develop program standards Pork Industry Identification Working Group Developed program standards for swine that were consistent with Code of Federal Regulations Completed mid 2005 Swine ID Implementation Taskforce Started implementing the Swine ID Plan s program standards in 2005 13
USAIP to NAIS to ADT 2010 NAIS discontinued and ADT announced 2011 USDA Proposes ADT Rule in the Federal Register 14
Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) USDA s ADT Rule ( published Jan 9 th 2013) Purpose is to improve the ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found. Minimum national identification and documentation requirements for livestock moving interstate. Specifies approved forms of official identification for each species No changes to how swine are identified for interstate commerce 15
Swine ID Plan Key components to the Swine ID Plan: Premises Registration Animal Identification Animal Tracing Only applies to the identification and traceback of swine up to when the carcass passes USDA FSIS inspection Enhances current mandatory identification and traceback capabilities
Swine ID Plan Goal To standardize, streamline and strengthen the animal health infrastructure that currently exists today A strong animal health infrastructure allows the industry to maintain commerce and expand pork export markets due to the high health status of the U.S. swine herd
Premises Identification 19
Premises identification number (PIN) A nationally unique number assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location from other premises. (9 CFR 71.1) 20
U.S. Pork Industry and PINs PIN s are the preferred site identifier for U.S. Pork A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm. (9 CFR 71.1) Industry transitioned to PIN s (USDA allocated) 99% of USDA estimated swine premises registered 21
Animal Identification 22
Program Standards Uses the definition of a Swine Production System to help determine what ID is required. A swine production enterprise that consists of multiple sites of production; i.e., sow herds, nursery herds, and growing or finishing herds, but not including slaughter plants or livestock markets, that are connected by ownership or contractual relationships, between which swine move while remaining under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually connected owners. (9 CFR 71.1) 23
Types of ID for Swine Definitions Group Identification Number (GIN) Producer assigns the GIN PIN + date the group is formed Example: 1234567010106 Official unique individual ID AIN Tag National Uniform Ear Tagging System (NUES) tags Official USDA PIN Tags 24
USDA Official Premises Identification Number Tags (PIN Tags) for Breeding Stock 25
Official PIN Tags Are official identification for sows and boars in harvest channels that can double as a management tag. Market sows & boars must be tagged with an Official PIN Tag by the producer before they are shipped to harvest. 26
Official PIN Tags According to the Swine ID Program Standards the PIN on the Tag should be the PIN of the breeding farm she was on prior to entering harvest channels 27
Records for Movements of Breeding Stock For producers using official PIN Tags, the following events, along with the date of the event, must be recorded (hold records for 3 years) Number of Official Identifier applied (recorded by original owner) Moved into a premises and source PIN Moved out of a premises and destination PIN Number of New Official Identifier number (if an official identifier has been lost) 28
PIN Tags Challenges to adoption Voluntary Color Cost Agreement with approved manufacturers to distribute only pink tags 5 to 15 cents higher 29
Efforts that help address challenges Color NPB Board supported allowing multiple colors Multiple Colors of Official PIN Tags available Cost Producers using the PIN tag as a management tag to offset costs 30
Efforts that help address challenges Voluntary NPPC & NPB Boards passed resolutions urging producers to adopt 2013 Forum Resolutions/Advisements A request to Packers to require Official PIN Tags as a condition of sale 31
Official PIN Tags Sow Packer Requirement Condition of sale by January 1 st 2015 Johnsonville, Hillshire Brands, Calihan Pork Processors, Bob Evans Farms, Wampler's Farm Sausage, Pine Ridge Farms, Pioneer Packing Co., Pork King Packing and Abbyland Pork Pack. Must be a USDA Approved Official PIN Tag Industry support for this @ 2013 Pork Forum 32
Animal Disease Traceability The pork industry will continue to work cooperatively with federal & state animal health authorities on implementing the Swine ID plan, so the industry has an improved nationally standardized animal identification and pre-harvest traceability system for animal health that is consistent across all states. 33
PQA Plus Survey Review
Quantitative online survey fielded in mid-january 2014 margin of error +/- 2.5% Opinion Elite, n=1,000 Millennials, n=500 Methodology 35
The potential of PQA+ The mere fact of PQA+ can influence opinions and purchase decisions when it comes to pork products Q. How likely would you be to actively seek out and buy pork products that come from farms utilizing the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program vs. those that don t? pre-ballot post-ballot 36
Across all consumers The potential benefits apply across the retail and grocery space
The Big Picture
Why PQA Plus matters Consumers recognize improvements in food safety But that doesn t translate into comfort with how pigs are raised Q. Thinking about the pork products available in grocery stores, markets and restaurants, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. (% Agree)
The missing links Transparency isn t the only issue here, but consumers do feel there s a lack of information on the issues they care about Q. When it comes to the specific information you might want regarding how the farms that supply your pork raise animals for food, how would you describe the amount of information available to you on the following topics? How the farms
Moving the needle You don t have to provide every detail Simply the perception of transparency makes a difference Imagine that three grocery stores made the following statements regarding standards on the pig farms they get pork from. Which one would you be most likely to buy pork products from? Chipotle: There are ranchers whose pigs are raised outside or in deeply bedded pens, are never given antibiotics and are fed a vegetarian diet. It's the way animals were raised 50 years ago before huge factory farms changed the industry. We believe pigs that are cared for in this way enjoy happier, healthier lives and produce the best pork we've ever tasted. We call this style of ranching naturally raised, and for over ten years, we have sourced 100% of our pork from producers who follow these guidelines. m+p: We are working with all of our suppliers to sell only products that have met an industry-wide standard. Pork Quality Assurance Plus isn t designed to be yet another blue check mark in your meat case. It s designed to be a transparent, comprehensive set of standards that integrates the best thinking from farmers, veterinarians, academics and others. You deserve to know that your pork is safe, and that it comes from animals raised in a humane way. This program allows us to show you how we re working with everyone involved to meet that responsibility. Whole Foods: We work with the Global Animal Partnership to certify our producers' animal welfare practices. Global Animal Partnership is a non-profit organization dedicated to continually improving the lives of farm animals. They have developed the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards that rate how pigs are raised for meat. The Step ratings are assigned by independent third-party certifiers using auditors trained by Global Animal Partnership. Look for this rating system when you choose our pork. It's your way of knowing how the animals were raised for the meat you are buying. Total 39% 38% 23%
The confidence of consistency Consumers want to know that the pork they buy meets their standards no matter what store they re shopping at Q. When it comes to how the grocery stores and restaurants you shop at set their animal welfare standards, which of the following is closest to your opinion?
Collaborative standards for consumers PQA Plus can be that standard It doesn t have to be consumer-facing But if retailers use it as a strong backbone for their own policies, that industry-wide engagement can make a difference [ ] We will only accept pork products from suppliers who have met and maintained Pork Quality Assurance Plus guidelines. We are also working with suppliers to set additional guidelines for our premium products, but it s important to have a common understanding of animal care for all of our pork products.
Defining Transparency
What it is Independently monitored standards resonate over farmer-led And an industry-wide approach best sells the breadth of PQA Plus Q. Which description of the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program would give you more confidence that the program sets and maintains high standards of animal care? That it is: Q. And what is most important to you when it comes to how the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program is applied? Should it be a (BLANK) effort?
What it is Consumers want random checks, not predictable assessments And specifying the number of criteria involved shows how extensive the program is Q. When it comes to how this program is run and farms are assessed, is it more important to you that: Q. And should the results of those onsite assessments be based on:
Who s involved Be specific about the experts and outside stakeholders involved in setting and maintaining PQA Plus standards Q. Who would you prefer to see developing and enforcing the Pork Quality assurance Plus program? Q. Now thinking about the people who conduct the Pork Quality Assurance Plus training and assess whether farmers are following the guidelines, who would you have more confidence in?
How it works PQA Plus needs to be up-to-date, with constantly evolving standards. Q. Is it more important to you that the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program be a set of:
Building a story Consumers want to know that multiple stakeholders including vets, academics, and farmers have a voice in setting and updating standards For each of the following pieces of information about the Pork Quality Assurance Plus program, please indicate whether that specific element makes you feel more or less favorable toward the program. The Pork Quality Assurance Plus program is taught to farmers and their employees by independent, third party trainers, including veterinarians and academics Today a large majority of U.S. pig farmers are certified through Pork Quality Assurance Plus, and more are joining every year Pork Quality Assurance Plus guidelines are updated with the latest veterinary and scientific findings every three years Pork Quality Assurance Plus is designed to build on existing government regulations, not replace them Favorable Pork Quality Assurance Plus is a voluntary program developed by and for pig farmers 47% 73% 73% 67% 61%
Optimized PQA Plus Statement
[ ] Pork Quality Assurance Plus is an industry-wide, constantly evolving program that is designed to implement best practices on pig farms. It is independently monitored and includes training for farmers and their employees taught by independent, third party trainers, including veterinarians and academics. And it includes random, on-site assessments every year where farms are assessed on a list of 10 separate criteria based on common farm practices. The vast majority of pig farmers in the United States are certified through this program, and more are joining every year.
A Unified Approach Pork Industry Audit Task Force
53 Industry Audit Task Force
2013 Pork Forum Resolution NPB shall work with the various packers and other industry stakeholders to develop a common foundation for on-farm animal welfare audits, facilitate equivalency among packers, and minimize the need for multiple audits on a farm supplying multiple packers. The common foundation for the audit would be based on PQA Plus and TQA.
A New Coalition - Objectives Purpose - Facilitate the development of a workable, credible and affordable on-farm verification system. Objectives Provide stakeholders with a consistent, reliable and verifiable system that assures on-farm animal well-being Eliminate duplication of audits and/or minimize the administrative burden placed on producers Develop consensus about consistent standards between and among various independent audit programs. PQA Plus could be the foundation with possible company-specific addendums Create a standard process that results in inter- and intraobserver consistency and protection of herd health
IATF Progress First Meeting Exploration (Feb 2013) Learning from others Can we proceed Second Meeting Data Review (Aug 2013) Audit Gap analysis 10 entities submitted on-farm AW audits to AASV 3 Main categories Retail and Foodservice Survey qualitative interviews (n-5) and quantitative online survey (n-15) Not statistically valid however the respondents include opinion leaders in both retail and restaurant sectors
Task Force Conclusions The group determined that PQA Plus could serve as the baseline for future audit development Current platform is designed to be adaptable Importance of learning, understanding and engagement of producers and caretakers prior to an audit Alignment between packer audits and education so producers are able to meet expectations There should be broad-based involvement from pig farmers, pork packers, restaurants, retailers and others in the industry to build broad based support for the final program. 57
IATF Progress Working group meetings Development of a draft framework Auditor qualifications and training Frequency and selecting sites to audit Common database Data reporting Development of a draft audit standard Third Meeting Development (Dec 2013) Fourth Meeting Customer Engagement (Jan 2014) 17 partners from 11 food service/retail companies Review of industry structure, biosecurity, and audit purpose Gather input on draft framework and audit standard
Audit Standard Criteria already in PQA Plus New Criteria Wilful Acts of Abuse Written Euthanasia Plan Animal Handling Piglet Processing Procedures Humane Euthanasia Caretaker Training Lameness Manuals/SOPs Space Allowance Facilities Lesions Scratches Mortality Records Body Condition Score VCPR Lesions Tail Biting Mortality Management Lesions Abscesses Site Assessments Lesions Hernias Biosecurity Lesions Deep Wounds Lesions Shoulder Sores Thermal Comfort Air Quality Emergency Backup Equipment Daily Observation Records Emergency Action Plan Med & Treatment Records Lesions Rectal prolapses Treatment Management Transport/Load-out Feed/Water Access Animal Care/Abuse Policy Needle and Sharps Usage
IATF Progress Working Group Meeting (March 2014) Development of audit tool Development of scoring system Identify objectives for beta testing Fifth Meeting Producer/Packer Review (Apr 2014) Discuss common database Review edits to Audit Standard Review Audit Tool and scoring system Review and finalize Beta Testing plan Discussion on next steps and roll-out
IATF Next Steps Full IATF meeting May 19 th Development of common audit database Beta testing Phase 1 desk review Phase 2 field testing Phase 3 external review (PACCO) July IATF meeting Availability of audit tool
IATF Next Steps Communications plan Resource guides for producers Incorporate updated information into PQA Plus IATF ongoing efforts Regular review of aggregated data Updates to audit standards and tool as
Questions & Discussion