Search

Because meatpacking is one of the most dangerous industries in the United States, we were asked to provide the Congress with information on the characteristics of workers in the meat and poultry industry and the conditions in which they work, the types of injuries and illnesses these workers incur, how injury and illness rates have changed over the past decade, and factors that may have affected these rates. We were also asked to determine what is known about the effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) efforts to improve safety and health in the meat and poultry industries. The largest proportions of workers in the meat and poultry industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), are young, male, and/or Hispanic. Although the majority of workers are citizens, an estimated 26 percent of them are foreign-born noncitizens. They work in hazardous conditions involving loud noise, sharp tools, and dangerous machinery. Many workers must stand for long periods of time wielding knives and hooks to slaughter or process meat on a production line that moves very quickly. Workers responsible for cleaning the plant must use strong chemicals and hot pressurized water. While, according to BLS, injuries and illnesses have declined over the past decade, the meat and poultry industry still has one of the highest rates of injury and illness of any industry. The most common injuries are cuts, strains, cumulative trauma, and injuries sustained from falls, but more serious injuries, such as fractures and amputation, also occur. According to BLS, the injury and illness rate for the industry has declined from an estimated 29.5 injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 1992 to 14.7 in 2001. Injury and illness rates can be affected by many factors, such as the amount and quality of training, employee turnover rates, increased mechanization, and the speed of the production line. Some evidence suggests that OSHA's efforts have had a positive impact on the injury and illness rates of workers in meat and poultry plants. However, while the criteria OSHA uses to select plants for inspection--which focus on plants with relatively high injury and illness rates--are reasonable, OSHA could improve its selection process by also considering trends in plants' injury and illness rates over time. In addition, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of OSHA's efforts because the agency does not assign a unique identifier to each plant, making it hard to compare the data it collects on specific plants' injury and illness rates with the information the agency collects on the results of its plant inspections and other programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns have been raised that the economic models used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. International Trade Commission do not account for all the factors that affect cattle prices and producer incomes. GAO reviewed USDA's livestock model to determine whether it incorporates imports, market concentration, marketing agreements, and forward contracts. In reviewing best modeling practices, GAO's expert panel concluded that domestic cattle demand and supply were the fundamental forces driving cattle prices and producer incomes. The panel identified issues necessary to develop a comprehensive modeling system that predicts cattle prices and producer incomes. The panel recommended the collection of better data to quantify several important factors omitted from the model. The panel also wanted to see a more complete characterization of the supply and demand relationships connecting the cattle producer to the final consumer. The panel's emphasis on a more complete characterization of the cattle and beef industry underscores the idea that the demand for cattle is ultimately driven by consumer demand for beef and other demand and supply forces linking cattle producers to feedlots, meatpackers, and retailers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cattle and hog producers have raised concerns about changes in their industries that affect competition, such as mergers among meatpacking companies, increased marketing of livestock through contracts, and greater control by meatpacking companies over livestock production and marketing. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for monitoring the cattle and hog industries and halting unfair and anticompetitive practices. USDA has assigned this responsibility to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). Because of continued concerns about whether GIPSA is adequately protecting competition in the livestock markets, GAO reviewed USDA's efforts to implement the Packers and Stockyards Act. This report discusses the number and status of investigations conducted by GIPSA in response to complaints about anticompetitive activity and factors that affect GIPSA's ability to investigate concerns about anticompetitive practices. GAO recommends several actions to improve GIPSA's investigations, including integrating USDA attorneys into GIPSA's investigative teams and adopting more systematic approaches to its investigative work. This testimony summarizes the September report, GAO/RCED-00-242. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cattle and hog producers have raised concerns about changes in their industries that affect competition, such as mergers among meatpacking companies, increased marketing of livestock through contracts, and greater control by meatpacking companies over livestock production and marketing. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for monitoring the cattle and hog industries and halting unfair and anticompetitive practices. USDA has assigned this responsibility to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). Because of continued concerns about whether GIPSA is adequately protecting competition in the livestock markets, GAO reviewed USDA's efforts to implement the Packers and Stockyards Act. This report discusses the number and status of investigations conducted by GIPSA in response to complaints about anticompetitive activity and factors that affect GIPSA's ability to investigate concerns about anticompetitive practices. GAO recommends several actions to improve GIPSA's investigations, including integrating USDA attorneys into GIPSA's investigative teams and adopting more systematic approaches to its investigative work. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Packers and Stockyards Programs: Investigations of Competitive Practices Need Improvements by Lawrence J. Dykeman, Director of Food and Agriculture Issues, before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. GAO/T-RCED-00-299, Sept. 24 (13 pages). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To reduce foodborne illnesses and improve the safety of meat and poultry products, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued regulations requiring that all meat and poultry plants adopt a science-based production control system, known as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), by January 2000. The HACCP approach, which was recommended by USDA's National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods and endorsed by the scientific community, is based on seven guiding principles. These principles center around the identification of biological, physical, and chemical hazards that are likely to occur in meat and poultry plants and the establishment of critical points in the production process where controls can be applied to prevent or reduce those hazards. This report (1) determines whether the system adopted by USDA in its regulations is consistent with the seven HACCP principles endorsed by the Advisory Committee, (2) evaluates whether the HACCP training program for USDA inspectors is adequate and science-based, and (3) determines if there is an adequate dispute resolution process between plants and USDA under the new inspection system. GAO found that USDA's HACCP regulations, along with guidance, are consistent with the seven HACCP principles endorsed by the Advisory Committee. Generally, inspectors received the training needed to oversee plants' implementation of HACCP programs, although many inspectors reported that they would benefit from refresher courses. In GAO's view, USDA's dispute resolution process provides industry with an appropriate mechanism to appeal inspectors' enforcement actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]