1. Strategic Goal 4: Strengthen Collaboration Among Internal and External Stakeholders to Prevent Foodborne Illness Goal Leader: Terri Nintemann, Assistant Administrator, ODIFP September Update 1

2. Outcome 4.1 Definition and Weighting FSIS maximizes relationships with public health and food safety partners (i.e. large, small, and very small regulated establishments; other Federal, State, and local agencies; consumer groups; academia; and other food safety stakeholders) to enhance the food safety system. 2 Measure Weighting Measure 4.1.1: Percent of time products from three research agencies (ARS, ERS, and NIFA) used by FSIS and shared with stakeholders 30% Measure 4.1.2: Percent of results from interagency collaboration in analytics used in FSIS policy 40% Measure 4.1.3: Percent of identified opportunities realized to improve information sharing 30% Total 100%

3. Measure 4.1.1 Measure: Percent of time products from three research agencies (ARS, ERS, and NIFA) are used by FSIS and shared with stakeholders Baseline FY2012 Measure: Percent of research priorities associated with ARS, ERS, and NIFA research outcomes that are used by FSIS and shared with stakeholders 4 research priorities/22 research priorities total in FY2012 = 18% FY2016 Target: 25% above baseline Major FSIS Activities Considered for Measure: 2012 FSIS Food Safety Research Priorities Proposed studies with each priority 3

4. Measure 4.1.1 Project List Project Number Research Priority List 2012 1Investigate and/or develop emerging screening technologies to reduce time for detection. 2Investigate and/or develop emerging screening technologies for enhanced subtype/virulence characterization of pathogens. 3Investigate and/or develop emerging screening technologies to provide multi-analyte detection from a single analytical sample portion. 4Investigate and/or develop emerging screening technologies which are applicable to FSIS regulated products (meat, poultry, egg products and foods containing these products). 5Develop rapid methods for screening of "high-risk" compounds such as environmental contaminants. 6Develop or refine testing methods for quantifying target pathogens in meat, poultry and egg products. 7Identify and evaluate alternative approaches to N60 sampling. 8Develop PBPK models to estimate chemical concentrations in beef, pork and chicken tissues. 9Identify and/or develop emerging technologies for real-time testing for higher levels of contamination prior to slaughter. 10Develop non-targeted methods to detect chemical contaminants in FSIS regulated products 11Further develop the use of indicator/surrogate organisms in processing establishments to validate and monitor intervention effectiveness. 12Evaluate the potential effectiveness of pre-harvest interventions on finished products. 13Develop a screen for the detection of hormone and hormone-like compounds. 14Determine retail use statistics/practices which could contribute chemicals (insecticide, rodenticide, fungicide, antimicrobial) or pathogens to FSIS regulated products. 15Determine the magnitude and significance of migration of chemicals (e.g., endocrine disruptors) from packaging into FSIS regulated products. 16Determine effectiveness of parallel and/or simultaneous application of more than one pre-harvest and/or post-harvest intervention as a control strategy. 17Conduct ex post evaluation of regulatory initiatives. 18Determine the presence and contributing factors for antimicrobial resistant strains in poultry and cattle. 19Develop or refine cooking and cooling models. 20Develop or refine dose-response curves for pathogens (including specific subtypes) of interest. 21Determine (validate) the effectiveness (log-reduction) of interventions used by industry to reduce levels of pathogens on FSIS regulated products. 22Identify consumer practices which compromise the safety of FSIS regulated products and/or generate data to develop public education and outreach to improve food handling practices 4

5. 4.1.1 Performance Measure Percent of research priorities associated with ARS, ERS, and NIFA research outcomes that are used by FSIS and shared with stakeholders Outcome Measure: Number of FY 2012 FSIS Research Priorities associated with research outcomes used by FSIS or FSIS stakeholders= Number of FY 2012 FSIS Research Priorities Examples include (but are not limited to): 1.Methods adopted by FSIS labs or inspectors 2.Information leading to the development of FSIS policies 3.Information leading to industry/retail/consumer guidance 4.Information (e.g. publications) used by researchers to further food safety research that is pertinent to FSIS regulated products % Achieved 5 X 100 =

6. Baseline Measure FY 2012 There are 4 priorities for which research outcomes that have been adopted by FSIS and/or FSIS stakeholders. 1.Develop rapid methods for screening of ‘high-risk’ compounds such as environmental contaminants. Analytical methods developed by ARS (USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA ) and adopted by FSIS labs = 1) Screening for Pesticides by LC/MS/MS and GC/MS/MS, 2) Screening and Confirmation of Animal Drug Residues by UHPLC-MS-MS, and 3) Screening and Confirmation for Aminoglycosides by LC-MS-MS. 2.Development or refinement of cooking and cooling models. Research findings produced by ARS (USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA ) on the translocation and thermal inactivation of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli in non-Intact provided critical data for the non-intact beef risk assessment conducted by FSIS, OPHS, RAD in 2010. 3.Investigate and/or develop emerging screening technologies to provide multi-analyte detection from a single analytical sample portion. Research findings produced by ARS (USDA Agricultural Research Service, Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE ) and adopted by FSIS labs = Detection and Isolation of non-O157 Shiga-toxin Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) from Meat Products 6

7. Baseline Measure FY 2012 4.Determine (validate) the effectiveness (log-reduction) of interventions used by industry to reduce levels of pathogens on FSIS regulated products. – Research findings produced by ARS (USDA Agricultural Research Service, Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE ) on the Evaluation of Commonly Used Antimicrobial Interventions for Fresh Beef Inoculated with Shiga Toxin- Producing Escherichia coli Serotypes O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, and O157:H7 were adopted by FSIS OPPD as a basis for developing FSIS non-O157 policies. 7

8. 4.1.1 Annual Targets and Color Range Baseline Measure FY 2012 FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016 Annual Targets Based on Current FY2016 Strategic Plan Target 18% 10% above baseline 15% above baseline 20% above baseline 25% above baseline 4/22 = 18% 4/22 = 20%5/22= 21%5/22= 22% 5/22 = 23% New Proposed Targets 18% 0% above baseline 25% above baseline 50% above baseline 75% above baseline 4/22 = 18% 5/22 = 23%6/22 = 27% 7/22 = 32% 8 New Proposed Color Ranges Green N/A ≥18% ≥23%≥27%≥32% Yellow N/A5%-17%19%-22%24%-26%27%-31% Red N/A0%-4%≤18%≤23%≤ 27%

9. Measure 4.1.2 Measure: Percent of results from interagency collaboration in analytics used in FSIS policy Baseline FY2012 Measure: 1 projects completed and used in FSIS policy/9 IFSAC projects total = 11% FY2016 Target: 95% of results used Major FSIS Activities: – Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC): CDC, FDA, FSIS Focus on foodborne illness source attribution 9 projects total in FY2012; 1 completed project, 2 additional with end of FY2012 deadlines 9

10. IFSAC Projects Project NumberDescriptionMajor Project Deliverables 1 Align thinking of foodborne illness source attribution and methods Workshop held in April 2011. Project complete. 2 Evaluate potential limitations with current foodborne illness source attribution estimates obtained from outbreak reports September 2012: Project Report Being Finalized 3 Investigation of the Hald model as a method to improve foodborne illness source FY2013 4Improve how foods are categorized into commodities September 2012: Project Report Being Finalized 5 Improve and advance communications about foodborne illness source attribution Spring 2013 6 Development of shared illness attribution estimates using tri- agency methods and simple food outbreak data: Phase 1 October 2012 7 Development of shared illness attribution estimates using tri- agency methods and data: Phase 2 FY2013 8 Provide attribution input for FDA’s work to develop FSMA Most Significant Foodborne Contaminants List January 2013 9 Estimate the baseline proportion of foodborne Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) illnesses that can be attributed to eggs January 2013 10

11. 4.1.2 Performance Measure Percent of results from interagency collaboration in analytics used in FSIS policy Outcome Measure: # of IFSAC projects completed and used in FSIS policy  total # of IFSAC projects in FY2012 Baseline Measure FY 2012: 1 IFSAC projects completed and used in FSIS policy = 9 IFSAC projects total in FY2012 % Achieved 11% Achieved 11

12. 4.1.2 Annual Targets and Color Ranges Fiscal Years Baseline FY 2012 FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015 FY 2016 Annual Measures 11% 32%53%74% 95% Color Ranges Green N/A ≥32% ≥53%≥74%≥95% Yellow N/A 12%-31%33%-52%54%-73%75%-94% Red N/A ≤11%≤32%≤53%≤ 74% 12

13. Measure 4.1.3 Measure: Percent of identified opportunities realized to improve information sharing Baseline FY2012 Measure: 66% FY2016 Target: 75% of identified opportunities realized Major FSIS Activities: Conferences/Exhibits/Association Meetings Conference Calls with State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs Conference Calls with HACCP Contacts and Coordinators Production and dissemination of Small Plant News Small Plant Help Desk Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network (NMPAN) 13

14. Measure 4.1.3 - Projects 14 Project Number DescriptionMajor Project Deliverables 1HACCP-Based Guidance for Meat and Poultry Processing at RetailInterim Guidance. March 2013. 2Beef Grinding Log Template for Retail EstablishmentsInterim Guidance. March 2013. 3Harmonize Time/Temperature Charts in Food Code with FSIS GuidanceInterim Guidance. March 2013. 4Revision of the 2006 CFP Listeria Retail GuidelinesInterim Guidance. June/July 2013. 5 Setting up Food Defense Workshop(s) in Mississippi (Joint Project with Mississippi State University) September 30, 2012 6 Small Plant News Guidebook “Introduction to the Microbiology of Food Processing” September 30, 2012 7 Small Plant News Guidebook “How to Develop a Recall Plan” and supplemental Workbook March 2013 8Small Plant News Guidebook on “Exemptions to the FMIA and PPIA”March 2013 9Small Plant News Guidebook on “Labeling”January 31, 2013 10 Guidance for Domestic Beef Slaughter Establishments on FSIS’ non-O157:H7 STEC Policy March 2013 11 Translation of Food Defense Documents into Korean Developing a Food Defense Plan for Meat and Poultry Slaughter and Processing Plants Food Defense Self Assessment Checklist for Slaughter and Processing Facilities Food Defense Plan Worksheet for Slaughter and Processing Facilities Elements of Functional Food Defense Plan Guide to Developing a Food Defense Plan for Warehouse and Distribution Centers Brochure – for Warehouse and Distribution Centers Food Defense Self Assessment Checklist for Warehouse and Distribution Centers Food Defense Plan Worksheet for Warehouses and Distribution Centers December 2012

15. Measure 4.1.3 – Projects continued 15 Project NumberDescriptionMajor Project Deliverables 12 Publication and Distribution of Small Plant News to Stakeholders 12 Issues by September 30, 2012 13Monthly State MPI Directors Calls8 Calls by September 30, 2012 14Monthly HACCP Contacts and Coordinators Calls7 Calls by September 30, 2012 15Conferences/Exhibits/Association Meetings13 Meetings by September 30, 2012

16. 4.1.3 Performance Measure Percent of Deliverables Developed and Released to Stakeholders (Projects 1-11) Measure 1: 2 project completed and released to stakeholders = 11 projects total Percent of Small Plant News issues Developed and Published (Project 12) Measure 2: 12 issues developed and published = 12 issues total Percent of Monthly State MPI Directors Conference Calls Held (Project 13) Measure 3: 8 conference calls held = 12 calls total Percent of Monthly HACCP Contacts & Coordinators Conference Calls Held (Project 14 ) Measure 4: 7 calls held = 12 calls total Percent of Active Participation at Conferences/Exhibitions/Meetings (Project 15) Measure 5: Participation in 13 events = 15 Events total 16 18% Achieved 100% Achieved 67% Achieved 58% Achieved 87% Achieved

17. 4.1.3 Overall Performance Measure Overall Percent of Deliverables Developed and Released to Stakeholders Average of Measures 1-5 = (18% + 100% + 67% + 58% + 87%)/5= 66% 17

18. 4.1.3 Annual Targets and Color Ranges 18 Fiscal Years Baseline FY 2012 FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015 FY 2016 Annual Measures 66% 68% of opportunities realized 71% of opportunities realized 73% of opportunities realized 75% of opportunities realized Color Ranges Green N/A ≥68% ≥71%≥73%≥75% Yellow N/A67%69%-70%72%74% Red N/A≤66%≤68%≤71%≤ 73%

19. Thanks! Questions? 19