Do you want overworked inspectors in charge of your meat’s safety?

by Celeste Monforton

August 13, 2013

More than 400 inspectors with the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) worked, on average, more than 120 hours each two-week pay period.    Those were the findings of the agency’s Inspector General in an report issued late last month.  Their investigation covered FY 2012, and included field work conducted from November 2012 through February 2013.

FSIS inspectors are assigned to more than 6,000 meat, poultry and egg processing plants in the U.S.  They are responsible for ensuring that the product sold by companies to consumers is safe and wholesome.  These firms process tens of billions of red meat and poultry annually.  With some USDA inspectors working many hours of overtime—not just a couple hours per week, but an average of 20 extra hours each week—can their senses stay sharp and can they do their jobs effectively?

The IG mentioned that overworked employees are more likely to commit errors.  They noted:

“Our analysis showed that one inspector averaged 179 hours, three inspectors averaged over 160 hours, and 14 averaged over 150 hours.   When OIG brought this issue to the attention of FSIS officials, they stated that they were unaware of this fact, and doubted that this extended overtime would negatively affect the agency’s inspectors.”

Funny how an organization that calls itself a public health agency, has such little understanding about how the work environment affects people’s health, safety, and performance.  We’ve written before about USDA’s insistence that its proposed rule to increase production line speeds in poultry processing plants won’t affect workers’ health.  Their perspective runs counter to the findings of researchers who’ve studied musculoskeletal disorders among poultry plant workers.  USDA insists that running production lines at as fast as 175 birds per minute will not take a physical toll on poultry-processing workers, and excessive overtime does not “negatively affect” inspectors.

The OIG disagrees and writes in their report:

“OIG maintains that overworked FSIS inspectors may be risking their own and the public’s health, especially if they are tired or fatigued while performing crucial food safety-related tasks.”

And,

“Because of these extended hours, OIG believes FSIS inspectors could have decreased productivity,which might impair their ability to perform functions that are critical to public food safety.”

The auditors specifically refer to a report by CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health about the impact of extended work shifts and overtime.  NIOSH researchers analyzed the peer-reviewed literature and found:

“In 16 of 22 studies addressing general health effects, overtime was associated with poorer perceived general health, increased injury rates, more illnesses, or increased mortality.”

The studies also identified task errors and impaired alertness, which certainly can compromise their performance and thus food safety.  Since NIOSH’s 2004 report, more studies on the adverse effects of extended workshifts and overtime have been published.

USDA says it didn’t know about the excessive overtime.  It also didn’t have a handle on getting reimbursed from the industry for the overtime.   FSIS inspectors are paid from federal coffers for 40 hours per week, with meat and poultry producers picking up the cost of any overtime.  The trouble is USDA’s payroll systems do not efficiently function to capture hours worked and bill overtime hours to the appropriate firms.  The shortfall in FY 2012 was nearly $6 million.

To protect public safety on roadway, there are federal limits on the hours of consecutive work allowed for truck drivers.  Most consumers probably don’t want overworked inspectors in charge of their meat’s safety.

This blog is cross-posted on The Pump Handle.

 

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Celeste Monforton

Celeste Monforton joined the Milken Institute School of Public Health in 2006. She is a regular contributor to the "Pump Handle," a blog known as "a water cooler for the public health crowd." She continues her work in occupational health and maintains her ties to The George Washington University by serving as a professorial lecturer.

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015