•  
  •  
 

Keywords

memorandum of understanding, MOU, letters of intent, LOI, letters of agreement, LOA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Food Safety and Inspection Service, FSIS, efficiency, procedures

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In its 2024 annual report, the GAO recognized the overlapping functions of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) in meat and poultry plants and how the two agencies have failed to effectively collaborate. Although both FSIS and OSHA have vested interests in ensuring healthy environments in meat and poultry plants, the administrative agencies have not developed a thorough approach for collaboration.

Created after the passage of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s primary responsibility is to “ensur[e] safe and healthful working conditions . . . ” in the majority of America’s workplaces, including meat and poultry plants. The agency falls under the authority of the Department of Labor (“DOL”). The agency primarily accomplishes its mission through unprogrammed, which can arise from complaints filed by workers, or programmed inspections, which target “high hazard industries or workplaces.” However, federal OSHA is not the only government entity that has authority over hazards in workplaces. State governments have an option to participate in the OSHA program, have their own “State Plan” or develop a “Hybrid Federal-State Plan.”

FSIS is the meat and poultry inspection branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and has the specific mission of “ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products.” Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”), Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”), and Egg Products Inspection Act (“EPIA”), FSIS has extensive authority to inspect meat and poultry products. Further, because of the demand for meat and poultry products and the continuous output of such commodities in plants, FSIS inspectors are required to be present in meat and poultry facilities daily.

FSIS and OSHA recognize the problem, and therefore, the agencies should amend their current Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to increase the specifications for how the agencies might fulfill the GAO’s recommended practices, utilize structures implemented in other cross-agency collaborative relationships, and include a government third-party intermediary mediator and arbitrator.

Having concluded Part I, the introduction and historical background of Part II describes agencies’ MOUs and explains the deficiencies with FSIS and OSHA’s current MOU. Part III analyzes the uncertainty surrounding administrative authority over ambiguous laws and describes how the advancement of antibacterial resistant diseases represents a threat to both agencies’ functions. Part IV evaluates the unlikely support for binding legislation and the necessity for an updated MOU that can bind the agencies, decrease ambiguity, and ultimately lead to preferred levels of collaboration in meat and poultry plants.

Download

Share

COinS