Premium California Foods: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2

On 8/9/24 at approximately 1135 hours, while performing a routine Humane Handling task verifying HATS category III (Water and Feed Availability), the following non-compliance was observed. At approximately 1135 hours, CSI REDACTED and I, Dr. REDACTED went outside to the ante-mortem pens. We observed that there were approximately 17 steers/heifers from "REDACTED still in pen #8. We observed that there was no feed available to the animals in pen #8. At the time, the establishment was on their lunch break (1130-1200 hours) and there were no employees outside by the pens. CSI REDACTED had observed the unloading of the "REDACTED steers/heifers (approximately 45 steers/heifers total) on 8/8/24 and observed that they were put into pen #8 on 8/8/24 at approximately 1120 hours. On 8/9/24, CSI REDACTED performed ante-mortem inspection of the 45 steers/heifers in pen #8 at approximately 0705 hours. At that time, she observed that there was no feed or evidence of feed in pen #8. On 8/9/24 at approximately 1135 hours, CSI REDACTED and I went outside to the ante-mortem pens, and we observed that there were approximately 17 steers/heifers remaining from "REDACTED still in pen #8. We observed that there was still no feed or evidence of feed in pen #8. The steers/heifers had been held for more than 24 hours without access to feed. We immediately notified QC REDACTED of our observations and the forthcoming non-compliance. He informed us that he would have a plant employee feed the animals in pen #8. Animals must have access to feed if held longer than 24 hours. This is a non-compliance of the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.2(e).

313.2

On 8/6/24 while verifying HATS Category III (Water and Feed Availability) as part of a routine humane handling task, the following non-compliance was observed. At approximately 1150 hours, I went outside to the ante-mortem pen area. The establishment was on their lunch break (1130-1200 hours), and there were no employees outside near the pens. I observed that all of the holding pens were empty. I then observed that there were approximately 20 steers/heifers being held in the lead up area/ramp going to the knock box. I observed that there was no water available to the animals. The establishment employees came back from lunch at approximately 1200 hours and began slaughter operations. At approximately 1215 hours, the establishment informed me that the lift at the inspector's station was not working, and they called break down and slaughter operations stopped. At approximately 1250 hours, I went back outside to the ante-mortem pen area. I observed that all of the holding pens were still empty, and I observed that there were still approximately 14 steers/heifers being held in the lead up area/ramp going to the knock box with no access to water. Slaughter operations were still stopped, so there were no employees outside near the pens. The steers/heifers had been in the lead up area/ramp with no access to water since the establishment went to lunch at approximately 1130 hours, so they had been held with no access to water for a total of approximately 1.25 hours. At this time, the outside temperature was approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit. At approximately 1305 hours, I informed QC REDACTED of my observations and the forthcoming non-compliance. I showed him the steers/heifers being held in the lead up area/ramp with no access to water. At approximately 1313 hours, Mr. REDACTED informed me that the inspector's station had been fixed and that slaughter operations would start soon. I stayed by the ramp area, and I observed that slaughter operations began at approximately 1317 hours. Animals must have access to water in all holding pens. This is a non-compliance of the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.2(e).

313.2

On May 28, 2024, EIAO REDACTED observed the following humane handling noncompliance while performing a verification visit in connection with a food safety/HACCP related enforcement action. The plant was performing ritual (Halal) slaughter of small ruminants. At approximately 0910 hours, while observing operations on the Slaughter Floor, the EIAO observed a small goat standing upright on all four limbs and bleeding from its neck. The animal was standing in the area that M47612 uses for bleed out (“dispatch area”) and was standing near several other carcasses that had recently bled out. The goat was not restrained in the restraint box where M47612 typically performs the ritual cut. The EIAO observed an employee walk up to the standing goat and her view of the goat was obstructed by the employee’s back. The employee stepped away from the dispatch area and the EIAO observed the goat was now lying on the floor. The EIAO turned her attention back to her tasks and shortly after, the same goat stood up from the floor of the dispatch area and walked around. The EIAO observed the small goat walk approximately five feet and the employee walked towards the goat. The EIAO left the slaughter area while the goat was still walking to find Plant Management so that her humane handling concerns could be addressed. The EIAO immediately returned to the slaughter floor with Ms. REDACTED, QC. At this point the animal was no longer walking in the dispatch area. Ms. REDACTED investigated the incident, had a discussion with her employee, and returned to where the EIAO was standing and informed the EIAO the knife used on the animal was dull. Ms. REDACTED also stated that the incident occurred within the ritual bubble. The EIAO informed the Ms. REDACTED that she would be documenting an MOI to refer the incident to the Alameda District Office. IPP were instructed via supervisory channels to document the EIAO’s findings as a noncompliance to 9 CFR 313.2 (b) for failure to handle livestock in a manner to minimize excitement and injury. IPP notified Plant Management of the forthcoming noncompliance record. M47612 is currently operating under an Abeyance for a Notice of Suspension that was issued on December 21, 2023 (verbal) for egregious noncompliance of humane handling in connection with slaughter and in violation of 9 CFR 313.2(b). The basis for that action was the SPHV’s observation of an employee excessively prodding a non-ambulatory steer with an electric prod at least six times while the animal displayed spasmic movements of its head and legs in response to the electric prod as it tried to stand up but was unable to rise from sternal recumbency. The employee continued to prod the NAD steer with a paddle, despite instruction by the SPHV to immediately cease prodding the animal. The animal was in acute distress with labored breathing and blood streaming from the nostrils and mouth and blood covering its back.

313.15(a)(2)

On December 21, 2023, at approximately 1330 hours, while performing a routine PHIS Livestock Humane Handling Task, I, Dr. REDACTED SPHV walked towards the antemortem pens area and observed an establishment employee standing on a platform adjacent to a concrete ramp leading to the knocking box. The employee was using an electric prod multiple times on a live steer that was non-ambulatory and in sternal recumbency on the concrete ramp. The employee was excessively prodding the animal in a continuous effort to force it to rise. Dr. REDACTED SPHV directly observed at least six times that the employee was continuously and repeatedly prodding the animal on the back even though it showed inability to rise and ambulate. Each time it was prodded, the animal displayed spasmic movement in its head and legs as it tried to get up but was unable to rise. Dr. REDACTED SPHV immediately headed to the knocking box area and instructed the employee to stop these actions. The employee then used a paddle to continue trying to make the animal get up. Dr. REDACTED SPHV observed the animal in acute distress. It was moving its head continuously and, in all directions, and blood was streaming from its nostrils and mouth. There was also blood spread all over its back. Dr. REDACTED SPHV observed the animal showing discomfort and having labored breathing. After above observations Dr. REDACTED SPHV asked the employee to stop touching the animal and went outside kill floor to contact Dr. REDACTED Front Line Supervisor (FLS). Dr. REDACTED SPHV also informed I, REDACTED Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) on site, and I, CSI REDACTED also made the same observations of the animal in distress. Per discussion with the FLS, I, CSI REDACTED placed U.S. Rejected Tag #B45617772 to the knocking box so no further slaughter could occur due to the inhumane handling of livestock. I, CSI REDACTED notified Mr. REDACTED, Plant Manager, and Mr. REDACTED, Slaughter Supervisor, of this action.

313.2

On Friday, December 15th, 2023, while performing a routine PHIS Humane Handling HATS: Category II- Truck Unloading Verification task, I, CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance at establishment M47612. At approximately 0730 hours, as I walked to the antemortem pens area, I observed as I arrived at the ramp unloading area two production employees sorting some animals (sheep and goats) right after unloading them from the truck. These employees were sorting the animals by grabbing them by ears, horns and necks and strongly manipulating the animals by pulling them to almost dragging them while the animals were on their feet as the animals attempted to resist. I heard vocalization of the animals while observing the above but not an excessive one. I observed one goat while sipping and falling but I did not see any signs of injury. I immediately called and informed my SPHV Dr. REDACTED about my observations and we determined that this action was in noncompliance with 9CFR 313.2(a) and thus I address the situation immediately with REDACTED (Slaughter Supervisor). Mr. REDACTED talked to the employees and the employees continued to handle the animals as per above ignoring their supervisor instructions. I verbally informed QC REDACTED about the noncompliance with the above regulation, that a noncompliance report will be documented and asked her about taking corrective action. She informed me that she already took corrective actions (CA) that consisted in retraining the employees. A review of the establishment's noncompliance history did not reveal a noncompliance with a similar root cause in the last 90 days.