SBREFA is an acronym for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

I had never heard of it until I was having a conversation with Erika Voogd, an internationally-known food safety, sanitation regulatory and humane handling consultant.

We were discussing the Westland-Hallmark manuscript and Erika mentioned that one time she had been consulting at a small facility and found many conditions that she thought were totally unacceptable. It just so happened that at the same time there was an EIAO (USDA/FSIS Enforcement and Investigations Analysis Officer) on site doing a Food Safety Assessment.

She asked him what he was going to do about the plant’s miserable hygienic condition and inhumane handling and he said “Nothing. This plant falls under SBREFA.”

I had no clue what she was talking about, so I asked. Erika explained to me that the plant was the major employer in a small, rural American community and to shut it down would create a major financial crisis. So the inspectors, when faced with a SBREFA situation, just tell the plant to try and do better.

I googled SBREFA after our conversation, and what I gathered from that search was that:

the Act allows small plants to have more influence when regulations are being proposed and that,
plants can get additional compliance assistance for Federal rules, and that
new mechanisms were created for addressing enforcement actions by Federal agencies

An Ombudsman was created and, by this Act, a mechanism was established for a small business to take an agency to court, and to get its legal fees compensated.

I think that FSIS inspectors’ interpretation, as stated above, is a gross oversimplification of the Act, and a response that limits or eliminates the risk of having to go to court. And it jeopardizes their main statutory mission, that of assuring safe food.

The Small Business Administration web page has this to say in regards to SBREFA:

“fundamental changes that are needed in the regulatory and enforcement culture of Federal agencies to make agencies more responsive to small business can be made without compromising the statutory missions of the agencies”

To not enforce its statutory mission is a fundamental change by at least some FSIS personnel that should not be acceptable to consumers.

I was never told about SBREFA when I was at FSIS, and I think I understand why. And before the name calling and finger pointing commence, again, I remind the readers that FSIS reorganized at my direction and created the Office of Outreach, Employee Education and Training (OOEET) under the leadership of Dr. Karlease Kelly .

I grew up and practiced medicine in small towns in Nebraska. Our calves were butchered locally in small shops. I am a fan and supporter of rural economic development.

So, grossly understated and oversimplified, OOEET initiated webinars and videotaping of seminars so small business owners did not have to travel and lose precious work hours to get up to speed with the FSIS regulations. That all required a thought process change and fundamental changes in how FSIS did business with small plant personnel; unlike the process evidently used to circumvent the threat of SBREFA.

I am interested in hearing what readers might know about, or have come into contact with, SBREFA. But, once again, I am not interested in your political opinions unless they directly affect food safety.

SBREFA should not give small plants a pass on food safety

Join for free* to continue reading.