For starters, HIMP is an acronym (within an acronym) that stands for “Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Based Inspection Models Project.”
This USDA pilot program, created more than 10 years ago, supposedly aims to “yield improved food-safety and other benefits to consumers.” In practice, this program reduces the number of government-trained inspectors at slaughter plants. It shifts much of the inspection and food safety control measures into the hands of the slaughter plants themselves and allows facilities to run slaughter lines at higher speeds than other plants where full government inspection still takes place.
There are currently five pig slaughter facilities operating under this USDA high-speed, reduced-inspection pilot program. Quality Pork Processors in one of them—and Hormel is associated two of the other four.
Although HIMP officially launched more than 10 years ago, the USDA has yet to thoroughly review the program to determine its efficacy and safety. It’s expected that the USDA will announce its findings in early 2016—and it may decide to expand this dangerous program to hundreds of other USDA-inspected pig slaughter plants nationwide. This program is so dangerous that several USDA whistleblowers have spoken out against it—and a government audit reportechoes these concerns.
By transferring many of the inspection responsibilities from trained government employees to the companies themselves, the protection of consumers, workers, and animals are put at risk. There is a fundamental flaw in expecting companies with a financial interest in processing as many animals as possible as quickly as possible to adequately police themselves.
In 2013, an audit report issued by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) underscored many of these deeply troubling concerns. The report notes the inadequate oversight of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the USDA’s inspection arm. According to the report:
“Since FSIS did not provide adequate oversight, HIMP plants may have a higher potential for food safety risks.”
“Although HIMP was intended to improve food safety, we found that 3 of the 10 plants cited with the most NRs [Non-compliance reports] from FY 2008 to 2011 were HIMP plants. In fact, the swine plant with the most NRs during this timeframe was a HIMP plant — with nearly 50 percent more NRs than the plant with the next highest number.”
In conclusion, “[T]he swine HIMP program has shown no measurable improvement to the inspection process; the program was not studied during its first 15 years; three of five HIMP plants had some of the highest numbers of NRs nationwide; and one plant was allowed to forgo an essential food safety procedure.”
