OSHA Should Determine How to Address Persistent Hazards Exacerbated by COVID-19 (GAO-23-105104)
Summary
A GAO report to congressional addressees, GAO-23-105104, dated June 2023, on meat and poultry worker safety. It recalls that in 2016 and 2017 GAO reported that meat and poultry workers faced multiple occupational hazards. Most of the 15 companies responding to GAO's survey said they encouraged distancing in communal areas, installed barriers and required masks in response to federal COVID-19 guidance. GAO states that studies, federal inspections and worker interviews suggest that workers continued to face hazards. Its title states that OSHA should determine how to address persistent hazards exacerbated by COVID-19.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Addressees
June 2023
MEAT AND POULTRY
WORKER SAFETY
OSHA Should
Determine How to
Address Persistent
Hazards Exacerbated
by COVID19
Accessible Version
GAO-23-105104
June 2023
GAO Highlights MEAT AND POULTRY WORKER SAFETY
Highlights of GAO-23-105104, a report to OSHA Should Determine How to Address Persistent
congressional addressees
Hazards Exacerbated by COVID-19
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
In 2016 and 2017, GAO reported that Companies reported taking steps to address COVID-19 in response to federal
meat and poultry workers faced guidance. Most of the 15 companies responding to GAO’s survey said they
multiple occupational hazards. OSHA encouraged distancing in communal areas, installed barriers, and required
is responsible for ensuring worker masks. However, studies, federal inspections, and worker interviews suggest that
safety and health, FSIS is responsible meat and poultry workers continued to face high risk of infection in the first year
for ensuring the safety of meat and of the pandemic. For example, in 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health
poultry products, and employers are
Administration (OSHA) found that COVID-19 risk to workers at one large meat
responsible for providing safe and
plant was more than 70 times higher than to the state’s general population.
healthful workplaces.
The CARES Act includes a provision to Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers Standing in Close Proximity
monitor and report on the federal
pandemic response. GAO also was
asked to review federal efforts to
ensure meat and poultry worker safety
and health during the pandemic.
This report examines (1) meat and
poultry companies’ response to the
pandemic and how the pandemic
affected these workers; (2) OSHA’s
enforcement actions and associated
challenges; and (3) OSHA and FSIS
collaboration on worker safety. GAO
surveyed companies, analyzed OSHA
inspection data from February 2018
through June 2022—the most recent
available at the time; reviewed federal
laws and regulations; and spoke to
workers from nine states with large
meat and poultry processing OSHA increased meat and poultry plant inspections in the first year of the
operations. GAO also compared OSHA pandemic, but faced enforcement challenges. Officials told GAO their ability to
and FSIS actions to leading practices protect workers was limited because existing standards did not target COVID-
for interagency collaboration, and related hazards, such as jobs requiring workers to stand in close proximity. The
interviewed federal officials. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 permits OSHA to develop safety and
What GAO Recommends health standards for specific industries. OSHA is developing an infectious
disease standard for healthcare workers, but not for workers in meat and poultry
GAO recommends that OSHA assess processing. Without assessing the actions needed to better protect meat and
the actions needed—such as an poultry workers—such as assessing the need for an industry standard—OSHA
industry standard—to protect meat and may be missing an opportunity to protect workers.
poultry workers; and that OSHA and
FSIS follow leading collaboration OSHA and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) officials said they met
practices. OSHA stated it would regularly during the pandemic, but did not provide documentation on whether
respond to the recommendations after they addressed worker safety. The agencies reported little field-level
the report is issued. FSIS agreed with collaboration among staff with direct knowledge of plant conditions. In August
the recommendation to collaborate. 2022, the agencies updated their 1994 memorandum of understanding, which
states that FSIS should report hazards to OSHA, including infectious diseases.
View GAO-23-105104. For more information, The agencies did not follow some leading collaboration practices, such as
contact Thomas Costa at (202) 512-4769 or defining outcomes and including key participants. By following these practices,
CostaT@gao.gov.
OSHA and FSIS could better collaborate on meat and poultry worker safety.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
GAO Highlights ii
Why GAO Did This Study ii
What GAO Recommends ii
What GAO Found ii
Letter 1
Background 5
Meat and Poultry Workers Experienced Outbreaks Early in the
Pandemic, and Companies Reported Taking Steps to Protect
Workers, Who Continued to Face Risks 14
OSHA Increased Inspections of Meat and Poultry Plants during
the Pandemic, but Faced Enforcement Challenges 25
OSHA and FSIS Missed Opportunities to Collaborate during the
Pandemic, and Did Not Follow Most Leading Collaboration
Practices 46
Conclusions 55
Recommendations for Executive Action 56
Agency Comments 57
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 62
Appendix II: Additional Information from Company Surveys and Worker Interviews 68
Appendix III: COVID-Related Violations Cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
for Meat and Poultry Employers 74
Appendix IV: Status of GAO Recommendations to the Department of Labor (DOL) Related to Protection of
Meat and Poultry Workers 76
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 78
Accessible Text for Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 81
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 84
GAO Contacts 84
Staff Acknowledgments 84
Tables
Table 1: Assessment of Extent to Which OSHA and FSIS
Followed Leading Collaboration Practices 50
Page i GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Table 2: COVID-Related Violations Cited for Meat and Poultry
Employers, February 1, 2020–June 30, 2022 74
Table 3: Status of GAO Recommendations to the Department of
Labor (DOL) Related to Protection of Meat and Poultry
Workers 76
Figures
Figure 1: Location and Size of Meat and Poultry Plants in the
United States as of March 2023 6
Accessible Data for Figure 1: Location and Size of Meat and
Poultry Plants in the United States as of March 2023 6
Figure 2: Conditions in Meat and Poultry Plants that Affect
Workers’ Risk of Contracting COVID-19 8
Accessible Data for Figure 2: Conditions in Meat and Poultry
Plants that Affect Workers’ Risk of Contracting COVID-19 8
Figure 3: Steps in, and Potential Outcomes of, an Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspection 11
Accessible Data for Figure 3: Steps in, and Potential Outcomes of,
an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Inspection 11
Figure 4: Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers Standing in
Close Proximity 21
Figure 5: Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers and a Partial
Partition Separating Workers across from Each Other 22
Figure 6: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Meat and Poultry Industry, COVID- and Non-COVID-
Related, February 2020 through June 2022 27
Accessible Data for Figure 6: Reports of Potential Workplace
Hazards to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Meat and Poultry Industry,
COVID- and Non-COVID-Related, February 2020
through June 2022 27
Figure 7: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
by Type, Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020
through January 2021, Compared to Previous 12-Month
Period 29
Accessible Data for Figure 7: Reports of Potential Workplace
Hazards to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), by Type, Meat and Poultry
Page ii GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Industry, February 2020 through January 2021,
Compared to Previous 12-Month Period 30
Figure 8: COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspections, Meat and
Poultry Industry, February 2020 through June 2022 32
Accessible Data for Figure 8: COVID- and Non-COVID-Related
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Inspections, Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020
through June 2022 33
Figure 9: Total COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Violations,
Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020 through June
2022 35
Accessible Data for Figure 9: Total COVID- and Non-COVID-
Related Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Violations, Meat and Poultry Industry, February
2020 through June 2022 35
Figure 10: Injury and Illness Rates in the Meat and Poultry
Industry, Compared with Rates in All U.S. Manufacturing,
Calendar Years 2014-2021 43
Accessible Data for Figure 10: Injury and Illness Rates in the Meat
and Poultry Industry, Compared with Rates in All U.S.
Manufacturing, Calendar Years 2014-2021 (Total
recordable case rate (Cases per 100 workers) 43
Abbreviations
ARPA American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CARES Act Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CPS Current Population Survey
DOL Department of Labor
ETS emergency temporary standard
FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service
FTE full-time equivalent
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page iii GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
MOU memorandum of understanding
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health and Administration
SOII Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page iv GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Letter
June 20, 2023
Congressional Addressees
Meat and poultry workers have long faced hazardous working
environments—including cold, wet, and crowded conditions—which the
COVID-19 pandemic underscored. In spring 2020, several meat and
poultry slaughter and processing plants closed or greatly reduced
production activities due to the spread of COVID-19. On April 26, 2020,
the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Labor’s
(DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued
joint guidance aimed at enabling companies to take steps to protect their
workers while continuing operations during the pandemic. The guidance
stated that the work environment of meat and poultry workers—who have
close, sustained contact with other workers on processing lines and in
other areas—may contribute substantially to their COVID-19 exposure.1
On April 28, 2020, Executive Order 13917 identified the production of
meat and poultry as an essential activity and noted the importance of
continued operation of the plants.2 Worker advocacy groups and others
have expressed concerns that OSHA has not effectively addressed
COVID-19 hazards affecting workers in the meat and poultry industry.
OSHA is the federal agency charged with ensuring safe and healthful
working conditions for the nation’s workers. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the
agency responsible for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products.
FSIS’s inspection personnel are present in federally inspected meat and
poultry establishments, and, like meat and poultry workers, are potentially
1CDC, Meat and Poultry Processing Workers and Employers: Interim Guidance from CDC
and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (April 26, 2020). This guidance
supplemented OSHA’s more general guidance on protecting workers from COVID-19,
which did not provide new required standards for employers to follow, but reaffirmed that
employers have an obligation to protect workers under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970. This industry-specific guidance provided abatement measures to help
protect meat and poultry workers from COVID-19.
2Executive Order 13917, Delegating Authority Under the Defense Production Act With
Respect to the Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency Caused by
the Outbreak of COVID-19. 85 Fed. Reg. 26,313, 26,313-14 (May 1, 2020).
Page 1 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
vulnerable to workplace hazards.3 In 2016 and 2017, we reported that
meat and poultry workers faced multiple occupational hazards but,
according to federal officials and worker advocates we interviewed, may
be reluctant to report or seek treatment for injuries and illnesses due to
their status as undocumented or foreign-born workers, or because of their
economic vulnerability.4 These reports made recommendations to OSHA
to help protect these workers, and most of these recommendations have
not been implemented by OSHA. In August 2022, OSHA and FSIS each
implemented a priority recommendation from 2017 that focused on
collaboration between OSHA and FSIS.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)
includes a provision for GAO to monitor and oversee federal efforts to
address the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the effect of the pandemic
on the health, economy, and public and private institutions of the U.S.5
We also received a separate request to examine meat and poultry worker
safety during COVID-19 from several members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, and letters from the Chair and Ranking Member of the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce asking to be
requesters on GAO worker safety engagements under the CARES Act.
This report examines (1) how meat and poultry companies responded to
the COVID-19 pandemic and how the pandemic affected meat and
poultry workers; (2) enforcement actions OSHA took to ensure meat and
poultry worker safety and health during the pandemic and challenges
associated with enforcement; and (3) OSHA and FSIS collaboration on
worker safety at meat and poultry plants during the pandemic.
To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws,
regulations, agency documentation, and related GAO reports, and
3In this report, we discuss two categories of workers: private sector meat and poultry
workers, and federal FSIS inspectors who are present in the plants.
4See GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Additional Data Needed to Address Continued
Hazards in the Meat and Poultry Industry, GAO-16-337 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2016);
and GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Better Outreach, Collaboration, and Information
Needed to Help Protect Workers at Meat and Poultry Plants, GAO-18-12 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 9, 2017).
5Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010(b), 134 Stat. 281, 580 (2020). All of GAO’s reports related
to the COVID-19 pandemic are available on GAO’s website
at https://www.gao.gov/coronavirus.
Page 2 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
interviewed officials from OSHA, FSIS, and CDC.6 We also interviewed
and reviewed information from additional stakeholders, including worker
safety experts and representatives of companies and worker advocacy
groups.
To understand how meat and poultry companies responded to the
pandemic and how the pandemic affected workers, we sent a survey to
meat and poultry companies, interviewed representatives of two large
companies, and visited one poultry plant.7 We spoke with three national
industry advocacy groups representing meat and poultry companies that
described the measures their members implemented in an effort to
protect their workers, as well as the efforts they took to assist their
members.8 Of the 391 surveys distributed to companies, we received 15
non-generalizable responses from four very large companies and eleven
smaller companies.9 We also conducted individual and group interviews
6See GAO-16-337; GAO-18-12; GAO, COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened
by Timely and Concerted Actions, GAO-20-701 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2020);
COVID-19: Urgent Actions Needed to Better Ensure an Effective Federal Response,
GAO-21-191 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2020); COVID-19: Critical Vaccine Distribution,
Supply Chain, Program Integrity, and Other Challenges Require Focused Federal
Attention, GAO-21-265 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2021); COVID-19: Additional Actions
Needed to Improve Accountability and Program Effectiveness of Federal Response,
GAO-22-105051 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2021); and Workplace Safety and Health:
Data and Enforcement Challenges Limit OSHA’s Ability to Protect Workers during a Crisis,
GAO-22-105711 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2022).
7In this report, we refer to meat and poultry companies and plants. A meat and poultry
company may have multiple plants where its slaughter and process operations take place.
We surveyed meat and poultry companies at the corporate level.
8The National Chicken Council, the National Turkey Federation, and the North American
Meat Institute administered our survey by email to their members. According to these
groups, our survey was sent to 391 meat and poultry companies. Fifteen companies
responded to our survey, resulting in a 4 percent response rate. However, four of the
largest meat processing companies in the U.S. responded to the survey. These four
companies collectively employed approximately 262,000 workers as of March 2023.
9Four of the companies reported having 31 or more plants and more than 10,000 workers;
and one company reported having 11-20 plants and between 5,001 and 10,000
employees. The remaining 10 companies reported having 10 or fewer plants—six of these
reported having 1,000 or fewer employees, two reported having between 1,001-5,000
employees, and two reported having between 5,001 and 10,000 employees.
Page 3 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
with 24 meat and poultry workers from 13 companies in nine states.10 We
spoke with 11 advocacy groups to identify these workers, and selected
these groups based on a variety of factors, such as those located in
states with a relatively high level of meat or poultry slaughter (based on
USDA data). The information gathered from these interviews is not
generalizable to all companies or all meat or poultry workers, but provides
illustrative examples of the challenges meat and poultry workers faced
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, through literature searches,
we identified studies from public health journals and other research-based
sources on various topics pertinent to our review.
To examine enforcement actions OSHA took to help ensure meat and
poultry workers’ safety and health, we interviewed OSHA staff from seven
selected area offices and two selected regional offices (each regional
office oversees a number of area offices) about efforts to ensure worker
safety and health and the challenges they encountered during the
pandemic. We also analyzed enforcement data from the OSHA
Information System from February 2018 through June 2022, the most
recent data available at the time. To assess the reliability of the data, we
reviewed relevant agency documentation, conducted data testing, and
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about these data. We found
the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To examine how OSHA and FSIS collaborated to help ensure meat and
poultry worker safety and health, we reviewed a 1994 and a 2022
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OSHA and FSIS to
protect workers.11 We also interviewed OSHA and FSIS field staff at
various levels about their collaborative efforts. We received written
responses from both agencies on how they collaborated during the
pandemic. We compared the MOUs, agencies’ actions, and agencies’
10Twelve of the 24 workers were employed by five very large companies (more than
10,000 employees), eleven were employed by five mid-to-large companies (1,001-10,000
employees), and three workers were employed by three small companies (less than 1,000
employees). Of these 13 companies, only three of the five very large companies were
among those that responded to our company survey. We conducted an additional
interview with seven meat and poultry workers during our visit to the poultry plant. This
interview differed in content and structure from subsequent worker interviews and is not
included in our discussion.
11Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, February 4,
1994; Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, August
1, 2022.
Page 4 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
responses against the seven leading practices for interagency
collaboration that we have identified in our prior work.12
We conducted this performance audit from March 2021 to June 2023 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
Conditions in Meat and Poultry Plants
An estimated 462,000 meat and poultry workers were employed by the
meat and poultry industry in 2021.13 According to USDA data, as of
February 2023, there were more than 5,500 federally inspected meat and
poultry plants in the U.S. (see fig. 1).
12GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
13According to Current Population Survey (CPS) data, an estimated 462,000 workers were
employed in the animal slaughtering and processing industry in 2021. This estimate has a
95 percent confidence interval from 413,567 to 510,433. All demographic estimates for the
meat and poultry industry in this report are based on the CPS data available as of
September 2022 and refer to workers age 16 years and older in the meat and poultry
industry.
Page 5 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 1: Location and Size of Meat and Poultry Plants in the United States as of March 2023
Accessible Data for Figure 1: Location and Size of Meat and Poultry Plants in the United States as of March 2023
Map of the United States shows 5,500 federally inspected meat and poultry plants in the U.S by size. A
majority of the plants are small (Fewer than 500 and more than 9 employees) spread across the United States.
Followed by large (500 employees or more). The map show a few plants where the size is not available or
missing.
Source: GAO analysis of United States Department of Agriculture data. | GAO-23-10510
According to CDC documentation and academic studies, distinctive
conditions within meat and poultry plants affect workers’ risk for exposure
to COVID-19 in these workplaces (see fig. 2). These include:
Page 6 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
· Distance between workers. Meat and poultry workers often work
close to one another on processing lines. Workers also may
experience crowded conditions when clocking in or out for their shifts,
using the bathroom or locker room, taking breaks, and eating lunch.
· Physical labor and loud environment. Work at meat and poultry
plants often requires significant manual effort, which may result in
strenuous breathing alongside fellow workers, contributing to the risk
of airborne transmission, according to one study.14 The requirement
for plants to operate at low temperatures in an environment with low
air exchange rates is another factor that, according to the same study,
may promote virus spread. Workers may need to yell to be heard in
facilities with a loud production environment, which another study
suggests could increase the emission of potentially infectious
respiratory droplets that increase risk of airborne transmission.15
· Duration of contact. Meat and poultry workers often have prolonged
closeness to their coworkers due to long work shifts (e.g., for 10-12
hours per shift). Continued contact with potentially infectious
individuals increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission, according to
CDC.
· Cold temperatures. According to CDC, the cold temperatures
maintained in some parts of plants may allow the virus to stay viable
outside the body for longer.
Further, according to CDC, meat and poultry companies’ COVID-
prevention efforts face the challenge of accommodating the needs of
workers who speak different primary languages, as some meat and
poultry workers may struggle with directions or guidance provided only in
English.
14Guenther, Thomas, et al, “Investigation of a superspreading event preceding the largest
meat processing plant-related SARS-Coronavirus 2 outbreak in Germany,” July 17, 2020.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3654517 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3654517.
15Kopechek, Jonathan A., “Increased ambient noise and elevated vocal effort contribute to
airborne transmission of COVID-19,” J Acoust Soc Am: 148(5): 3255:3257, November 30,
2020. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0002640.
Page 7 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 2: Conditions in Meat and Poultry Plants that Affect Workers’ Risk of
Contracting COVID-19
Accessible Data for Figure 2: Conditions in Meat and Poultry Plants that Affect
Workers’ Risk of Contracting COVID-19
Graphic depicting working conditions in meat plants:
· Demanding physical labor
· Loud environment a
· Prolonged low temperatures
· Prolonged contact
· Crowded conditions
Source: GAO analysis of CDC documentation and academic research paper; GAO (icons). | GAO-
23-105104
a
Kopechek, Jonathan A., “Increased ambient noise and elevated vocal effort contribute to airborne
transmission of COVID-19,” J Acoust Soc Am: 148(5): 3255:3257, November 30, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0002640.
Page 8 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Federal Roles Related to Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
and Health
OSHA
OSHA establishes and enforces occupational safety and health
standards; investigates worker complaints and incidents such as fatalities;
conducts inspections; and provides training, outreach, education, and
assistance.16 We reported in 2012 that OSHA’s standards have been
credited with helping prevent thousands of work-related deaths, injuries,
and illnesses.17 For example, OSHA’s “lockout/tagout” safety standard
requires employers to take measures to ensure that machinery cannot be
turned on while being cleaned and repaired. OSHA can use the “general
duty clause” of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act)
to cite employers for violating their duty to provide a workplace free from
recognized hazards that are likely to cause harm, even when no particular
standard applies.18
Employers are responsible for providing a workplace free from serious
recognized hazards, and must comply with standards, rules, and
regulations established by OSHA. As part of its enforcement, OSHA
conducts inspections, collecting evidence through methods such as
16See, generally, Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§
553, 651-678). The Secretary of Labor has delegated authority under the OSH Act to the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. 85 Fed. Reg. 58,393 (Sept. 18,
2020). OSHA is responsible for setting and enforcing workplace safety and health
standards for the private sector in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories.
Twenty-one states and Puerto Rico set and enforce their own workplace safety and health
standards under state plans approved by OSHA. State standards and their enforcement
must be at least as effective as the federal standards in protecting workers and in
preventing work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Approximately 61 percent of meat
and poultry plants inspected by FSIS are located in states where OSHA oversees worker
safety and health.
17GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard
Setting, GAO-12-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2012).
18The “general duty clause” requires employers to provide a workplace free from
recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm
to their employees. 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). A general duty clause violation may only be
cited if all four of the following required elements are identified: (1) the employer failed to
keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;
(2) the hazard was recognized; (3) the hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or
serious physical harm; and (4) there was a feasible and useful method to correct the
hazard.
Page 9 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
observation, document review, and interviews.19 Steps in an inspection
may include an opening conference, a walk-around by inspectors, a
review of injury and illness documentation, worker interviews, and a
closing conference. In April 2020, OSHA began conducting remote
inspections in certain situations.20 Based on evidence developed during
the inspection, OSHA evaluates whether the employer violated any safety
or health standards. The inspection may result in the issuance of a
citation if appropriate, and possible appeals by the employer (see fig. 3).
19See generally 29 U.S.C. §§ 657-659 and 29 C.F.R. pt. 1903. OSHA seeks to focus its
inspection resources on the most dangerous hazards. Its priorities include imminent
danger situations, employer reports of severe injuries or illnesses, worker complaints,
referrals of hazards from other agencies or organizations, inspections that target high
hazard industries or workplaces, and follow-up inspections.
20According to OSHA’s Updated Interim Enforcement Response Plan for Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19), issued on May 19, 2020, OSHA may use remote inspections
to conduct enforcement in place of on-site inspections, where resources are insufficient to
allow for on-site inspections, with an expectation that an on-site component will be
performed if/when resources become available to do so. The guidance was revised and
reissued in March 2021 and again in July 2021. According to OSHA policy, data on
remote inspections include only those inspections that are conducted entirely offsite. In
October 2021, we reported that at the start of the pandemic, OSHA enforcement activities
shifted from on-site inspections to a combination of remote and on-site inspections and to
informal inquiries, for which OSHA obtains information about an incident from employers
by phone, fax, or e-mail, rather than conducting a full on-site or remote inspection. See
GAO-22-105051.
Page 10 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 3: Steps in, and Potential Outcomes of, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspection
Accessible Data for Figure 3: Steps in, and Potential Outcomes of, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Inspection
· Inspection initiation: OSHA may initiate an inspection in situations of imminent danger or in response to a
complaint, referral, or report of a fatality or catastrophe; or it may choose to do an inspection as part of a local,
regional, or national emphasis program.
· Opening conference: OSHA officials explain to plant management and worker representatives, if applicable,
why OSHA chose the workplace for inspection and describe the inspection’s scope and procedures.
· On-site or remote inspection: OSHA officials walk through portions of the plant covered by the inspection and
review worksite injury and illness records, and may interview workers.a Alternatively, when circumstances
warrant, such as the risk of COVID-19 exposure to OSHA inspectors, OSHA may conduct remote inspections.
· Closing conference: OSHA officials discuss findings with the employer and relevant worker representatives
and discuss possible courses of actions an employer may take following an inspection. This could include an
informal conference with OSHA or contesting citations or proposed penalties, if any.
· Plant citation: If an inspector finds violations of OSHA standards or the OSH Act, OSHA may issue citations
and financial penalties. OSHA must issue a citation within 6 months of the violation’s occurrence.
· Appeal options: When OSHA issues citations, it offers the employer an opportunity for an informal conference
to discuss the citations, proposed penalties, abatement dates, or other information. Employers may also
formally contest the citations, proposed penalties, or abatement period by giving OSHA notice within 15
Page 11 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
working days after receiving notice of the citations. Contested citations are heard before the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) documentation; GAO (icons). | GAO-23-105104
Note: OSH Act = Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
a
Employee representatives may accompany inspectors.
OSHA carries out its enforcement responsibilities through 10 regional
offices and 87 area offices. As of March 31, 2023, OSHA reported
employing 931 inspectors, and its appropriation for fiscal year 2023 was
approximately $630 million. In October 2021, we reported that OSHA
area offices faced resource challenges during COVID-19, including
staffing challenges, such as high turnover and high numbers of
inexperienced staff who could not conduct inspections on their own.21 The
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) provided that OSHA receive
at least $100 million in additional funding made available to DOL.22 Of the
money made available to OSHA, ARPA provided that at least $5 million
be used for enforcement activities related to COVID-19 at high-risk
workplaces, including meat and poultry processing facilities. OSHA
reported it had spent $53 million of its ARPA funds through September
30, 2022. OSHA also reported that it funded 97 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions with this ARPA funding in fiscal year 2021 and 68 FTEs in fiscal
year 2022.
In June 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS)
related to COVID-19 exposure for workers in healthcare settings,
including those inside non-healthcare facilities.23 In November 2021,
OSHA issued another ETS related to COVID-19 vaccination and testing
for large employers. OSHA withdrew the non-recordkeeping portions of
the healthcare ETS in December 2021, and in January 2022, the
21See GAO-22-105051.
22ARPA provided $200 million in supplemental funding to DOL to carry out COVID-19-
related worker protection activities, and for the Office of Inspector General for oversight of
the Secretary’s activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. This funding
is available through September 30, 2023. Of this amount, not less than $100 million is for
OSHA and $12.5 million is for the Office of Inspector General. The remaining $87.5 million
was to be allocated by DOL to other offices, including the Wage and Hour Division and the
Office of the Solicitor.
23Under 29 U.S.C. § 655 (c), OSHA has the authority to issue an ETS without going
through the standard rulemaking process if it determines that “employees are exposed to
grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically
harmful or from new hazards” and that an ETS “is necessary to protect employees from
such danger.”
Page 12 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Supreme Court stayed (i.e., halted) the vaccine and testing ETS, after
which OSHA withdrew it as an enforceable temporary standard.
FSIS
FSIS is the food safety regulatory agency within USDA responsible for
ensuring that domestic and imported meat, poultry, and egg products are
safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled.24 Nearly 8,000 FSIS inspectors
and other front-line staff help ensure the safety and wholesomeness of
meat and poultry that enter interstate commerce. Some FSIS inspectors
were exposed to COVID-19 at work, and the ongoing risk of such
exposure posed a potential challenge for FSIS in continuing food safety
inspections.25
Since 1994, OSHA and FSIS have had in place an MOU on worker safety
that is intended to help ensure the safety and health of workers in meat
and poultry plants. In 2017, we made recommendations to both agencies
to strengthen their MOU.26 The agencies issued a revised MOU in August
2022, implementing our prior recommendations.
CDC
CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
conducts occupational safety and health research and workplace
evaluations, and makes recommendations to prevent worker injuries and
illnesses.27 NIOSH may recommend standards for OSHA’s adoption. At
the request of employees, employee representatives, or employers,
NIOSH may conduct a health hazard evaluation at a worksite to
determine whether health hazards are present. In addition, NIOSH
provides technical assistance and deploys field teams in response to
invitations from state and local health departments. NIOSH also can self-
initiate studies on occupational safety and health, and may conduct health
24The Secretary of Agriculture has responsibility for ensuring the safety and
wholesomeness of meat and poultry that enter commerce. See, generally, 21 U.S.C. §
451 et seq. and 21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.
25GAO-20-701.
26Specifically, we recommended in 2017 that OSHA and FSIS work with each other to
assess the implementation of their MOU on worker safety, make any needed changes to
ensure improved collaboration, and set specific time frames for periodic evaluations of the
MOU. See GAO-18-12.
27See, generally, 29 U.S.C. §§ 669-671.
Page 13 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
hazard evaluations in response to requests from federal, state, or local
agencies.
Meat and Poultry Workers Experienced
Outbreaks Early in the Pandemic, and
Companies Reported Taking Steps to Protect
Workers, Who Continued to Face Risks
Workers Contracted COVID19 at Meat and Poultry
Plants Early in the Pandemic
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, meat and poultry plants
experienced significant disease outbreaks among workers, with some
plants shutting down for weeks. According to a number of studies that
looked at these outbreaks and selected company data on illness and
deaths from COVID-19, meat and poultry workers were particularly
vulnerable to contracting and spreading COVID-19.
· OSHA’s Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing found that the
COVID-19 risk to workers at one large South Dakota meat plant in
2020 was more than 70 times higher than the risk to the general
population of the state.28
· At another large meat plant in Wisconsin, the Office of Occupational
Medicine and Nursing found that the COVID-19 incidence rate from
March 1 to May 31, 2020, was more than 56 times higher than the
incidence rate among working-age adults in the state.29
· A study found that there is a strong positive relationship between
meat and poultry plants and local community transmission of COVID-
19, and suggested that these plants may act as transmission vectors
into the surrounding population and accelerate the spread of the virus
28Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support and
Emergency Management, Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing, Consultation
Report for a South Dakota plant.
29Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support and
Emergency Management, Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing, Consultation
Report for a Wisconsin plant.
Page 14 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
beyond what would be predicted solely by population risk
characteristics.30
· Information from five of the largest meat and poultry companies
shows that at least 59,000 meat and poultry workers were infected
with the coronavirus and at least 269 workers died between March 1,
2020, and February 1, 2021.31
· A study of the meat processing industry in Nebraska found that 5,002
of the state’s approximately 26,000 industry workers were diagnosed
with COVID-19 from March through July 2020, which represented
nearly one-fifth of all cases in the state during that time.32
Federal COVID19 Guidance Recommended Safety
Measures for Meat and Poultry Plants; Executive Order
Stressed Importance of Plants’ Continued Operations
CDC and OSHA recognized that the asymptomatic spread of COVID-19
supported the need for physical distancing and other protective measures
within a meat and poultry processing work environment, and they
produced joint guidance that included recommended actions that
employers could take to reduce their employees’ risk of exposure to the
virus. The guidance recommended actions based on a “hierarchy of
controls” approach that groups actions by their effectiveness in reducing
or removing hazards, including:
· installing engineering controls, such as configuring communal work
environments to space workers at least 6 feet apart, if possible, or to
separate them using physical barriers, and ensuring adequate
ventilation in work areas to help minimize workers’ potential
exposures;
30Taylor CA, Boulos C, and Almond D, 2020. “Livestock plants and COVID-19
transmission.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dec. 15, 2020, 117(50),
31706-31715. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010115117.
31The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis sent letters to five of the
largest meatpacking companies seeking information and communications concerning
coronavirus infections and deaths. The information we are reporting comes from the
companies’ responses to the Subcommittee.
32Herstein JJ, Degarege A, Stover D, Austin C, Schwedhelm MM, Lawler JV, et al. 2021.
“Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 among meat processing workers in Nebraska, USA, and
effectiveness of risk mitigation measures.” Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Apr, 27(4).
https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2704.204800.
Page 15 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
· implementing administrative controls, such as staggering workers’
arrival and departure times to avoid having workers congregate near
time clocks, in parking areas, and locker rooms;
· changing production practices, if necessary, to maintain appropriate
distances among workers, such as by altering the number of animals
processed, the speed of the line, the way in which animals are
processed, or the number of people required to perform a process;
· reviewing and modifying sick leave and incentive policies to ensure
that ill workers stay out of the workplace and to avoid penalizing
COVID-19-infected employees for taking sick leave; and
· incorporating relevant aspects of the guidance into their operations
plans during the pandemic.
CDC Reports on Plant Walk-Throughs The primary recommendation in the joint CDC/OSHA interim guidance
CDC reports from their walk-throughs of meat was for companies to modify workstations, if feasible, so that workers are
and poultry plants from April through July 6 feet apart in all directions, including whether they are positioned side-
2020 described a lack of physical distancing
on production lines and found that slower
by-side or face-to-face. CDC stated in a walk-through report that physical
production lines were more a consequence of distancing was one of the best strategies to avoid exposure to the virus
excessive absenteeism than proactive and to slow its spread, and that barriers (the next recommended
measures to space workers apart.
For example, during a visit to a large beef
measure) should be used in combination with (and not replace) other
processing plant, CDC observed that the plant physical distancing efforts (see sidebar).
was using plastic sheeting and plastic bags as
barriers on the production line and providing
face shields to workers in areas on the A CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report stated that meat and
production line where they could not remain poultry facilities facing the operational challenge of physical distancing on
distant from other workers and where barriers
were not feasible. This included situations in
the production line might need to modify their production practices, and
which workers had to stand directly across recommended that companies reduce their rates of processing animals to
from one another, or where barriers would
have caused more hazard than benefit. The
plant reported slower line speeds during this
time as a result of increased absenteeism.
During a walk-through of a large poultry plant,
CDC reported that some barriers were not
large enough vertically or horizontally, and as
a result, some side-by-side workers were not
fully separated by the barriers. CDC also
observed a few locations where there was no
barrier in place to separate workers across
from or next to each other, and that in some
work areas, barriers were not feasible
because work tasks required worker mobility.
Source: GAO analysis of CDC documentation |
GAO-23-105104
Page 16 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
help ensure physical distancing on the production line.33 These
recommendations are consistent with findings from CDC plant walk-
throughs and research showing that production processes that place
workers in close proximity to one another increase the risk of COVID-19
transmission. For example, authors of a working paper published by
USDA’s Economic Research Service found that workers’ proximity to
others in meat and poultry plants likely was the main factor influencing the
initial spread of COVID-19 relative to other industries.34
U.S. Meat and Poultry Production during Executive Order 13917 was issued in April 2020, and identified the
the First Two Years of the Pandemic production of meat and poultry as an essential activity and noted the
Overall, U.S. meat and poultry production did importance of continued operation of the plants (see sidebar). The
not slow down during the first years of the
pandemic. According to data from the U.S.
Executive Order permitted the Secretary of Agriculture to, among other
Department of Agriculture (USDA), red meat things, issue regulations or orders to ensure meat and poultry processors
production reached record highs in 2020 and continued operations consistent with the joint CDC/OSHA guidance,
2021 (55.8 and 55.9 billion pounds,
respectively). USDA reported a constant level which was issued shortly before the Executive Order. DOL and USDA
of poultry production compared to pre- both communicated policy statements to meat and poultry companies
pandemic levels, with a combined total of
about 9.5 billion chickens and turkeys about the Executive Order.35 When asked what effect, if any, the April
slaughtered each year from 2019 to 2021. In 2020 Executive Order had on operations, four of the 13 companies
addition, in April 2020, USDA approved 15
waivers for line speed increases in poultry
responding to this question in our survey reported that they interpreted
plants during the pandemic. the Executive Order as supporting continued operations during the
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data | GAO-23-105104
33Dyal JW, Grant MP, Broadwater K, et al. 2020. COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and
Poultry Processing Facilities―19 States, April 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Rep 2020; 69:557–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6918e3.
34USDA, Economic Research Service, COVID-19 Working Paper: Meatpacking Working
Conditions and the Spread of COVID-19, AP-092, September 2021.
35DOL issued a statement of enforcement policy regarding meat and poultry processing
facilities stating that no part of the Joint CDC/OSHA Guidance should be construed to
indicate that state and local authorities may direct a meat and poultry processing facility to
close, or to remain closed, or to operate in accordance with procedures other than those
provided for in the guidance. Statement of Enforcement Policy by Solicitor of Labor Kate
O’Scannlain and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for OSHA Loren Sweatt regarding
Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities, April 28, 2020. USDA sent a letter to the
leadership of major meatpacking companies stating that the Executive Order authorized
the agency to take all appropriate action to ensure America’s meat and poultry processors
continued operations. In its letter, USDA stated that further action under the Executive
Order and the Defense Production Act was under consideration and would be taken if
necessary. USDA Letter to Stakeholders, Re: Executive Order 13917 Delegating Authority
Under the Defense Production Act with Respect to the Food Supply Chain Resources
During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19, May 5, 2020.
Page 17 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
pandemic, while eight of the remaining companies said the Executive
Order had no effect on operations.36
Companies Reported Taking Various Protective Measures
during the Pandemic; Workers Continued to Face Risks
We surveyed meat and poultry companies about selected measures they
implemented in their plants, and we interviewed 24 meat and poultry
workers from 13 companies in nine states. Of the 15 survey responses
we received, companies generally indicated that they took a number of
steps to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, the spread of the
disease among meat and poultry workers, as noted in the studies cited
above, suggests that workers continued to face high risk of infection early
in the pandemic. During interviews, 13 workers from five companies
suggested safety measures were not as effective as they could have
been at their plants because they felt that their employers often waited
too long to take safety measures—sometimes after workers became ill or
died—and also because they felt these measures were not appropriately
implemented or enforced.37 Below are some of the measures reported by
meat and poultry companies and some details of worker concerns:
Physical distancing. We asked companies if they implemented physical
distancing along production lines. Twelve of 15 companies indicated that
they did so.38 However, all 15 companies reported that it was not possible
to maintain physical distancing on the entirety of the production line, with
two stating that doing so would have negatively affected production.
In their responses to our survey, thirteen companies cited challenges
associated with physical distancing, such as the physical layout of plants,
and the design of work processes. In our survey, we also asked the
36The last company responding to this question said the Executive Order “provided clarity
and direction.” Our results are not generalizable to all companies in the industry.
37We held group discussions with plant workers. The number of workers who commented
on a particular topic may not include all the workers who agreed, or in some cases may
have disagreed, with what was said by a coworker.
38We asked companies to check boxes next to a selection of specific measures
recommended in the joint CDC/OSHA guidance to address the health concerns posed by
COVID-19, one of which was “implementing physical distancing along the production line.”
Twelve of the 15 companies checked the box indicating they had implemented that
measure, with several providing additional information in the space provided.
Page 18 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
companies whether they slowed their lines to allow for greater distancing
between workers, and three of the 15 companies reported running their
lines below capacity due to excessive COVID-19 absenteeism. (See
appendix II for more on what companies told us about physical
distancing.) While some plants reported slowing their lines, in April 2020,
15 poultry plants received approval from USDA to increase the speed of
their lines.39 As noted in the text box below, one study reported that
poultry plants that received line speed waivers had a higher incidence of
COVID-19.
Effect of Line Speed Waivers during COVID-19
A faster production line may contribute to conditions that increase worker risk. For
example, workers may be located in greater proximity to one another and have
increased difficulty in maintaining personal protective equipment. These factors could
contribute to conditions that increase the likelihood of viral transmission.
In 2018, the Food Safety and Inspection Service published criteria it would use to
consider line speed waivers for chicken processors participating in its New Poultry
Inspection System, seeking to operate line speeds up to 175 birds per minute. During
the pandemic, several poultry plants received approval to increase their line speeds,
permitting them to kill and process more birds per minute than allowed without a waiver
under current USDA regulations. These approvals are known as line speed waivers
because they waive the requirements to limit line speeds in current regulations.
One study looked at the relationship between line speed waivers and county COVID-19
case rates as of July 21, 2020. The study’s analysis, which included several of the
poultry plants that received line speed waivers from USDA throughout 2020, suggested
that among counties with poultry plants, case rates were about twice as high in counties
where a plant had received a line speed waiver in comparison to counties with non-
waiver poultry plants, during the months examined. When examining only plants that
received waivers in 2020, the study found that the relationship between plants with
waivers and case rates was even greater in magnitude.
Source: Taylor CA, Boulos C, and Almond D, 2020. “Livestock plants and COVID-19 transmission.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Dec. 15, 2020, 117(50), 31706-31715 | GAO-23-105104
Worker Experience: Barriers and Physical
Distancing
We spoke with one worker whose job was to
cut meat into smaller pieces that required
many exact cuts, with less than 2 feet of
space separating each person.
The worker told us that when plants increased
line speed to meet high production quotas,
39Waivers to increase line speeds may be requested of USDA. Plants receiving waivers
are allowed to speed up part of their production line by 25 percent, from the standard rate
of 140 birds per minute to a new limit of up to 175 birds per minute. The 15 plants that
received waivers in April 2020 are not the same 15 companies that responded to our
survey.
Page 19 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
workers were more crowded together. Our analysis of companies’ survey responses suggests that companies
According to the worker, the high production took steps to encourage distancing in communal areas. Examples of
targets resulted in many lines being pushed to
run 10 hours a day. The worker noted that steps taken by at least one company to encourage physical distancing
longer work days meant workers may have included: (1) removing some time clocks to eliminate bottlenecks, (2)
experienced more exposure to COVID-19.
implementing one-way corridors to allow workers to avoid passing one
This worker also said the plant had installed
plastic barriers. However, she also said that another, (3) staggering break times to reduce the number of people
barriers were ineffective because workers congregating at one time, and (4) staggering shift start times.
moved around them to get their jobs done. As
a result, the worker said she believed the lack
of physical distancing at the plant was a key We interviewed 24 workers from 13 companies who had varying views on
factor associated with high COVID-19 the steps companies took to ensure their safety through physical
transmission rates. According to the worker,
plant management told workers that if they did distancing. These workers described their concerns with plants’ efforts at
not meet their production target, they would physical distancing on the production line and in other parts of the plant
be called into the office and given a written
warning. (see sidebar). For more examples of what workers said about physical
Source: Interview with plant worker | GAO-23-105104 distancing, see appendix II.
Barriers. The joint CDC/OSHA interim guidance also recommended that
companies use barriers to separate workers from each other, if feasible.40
Thirteen of 15 companies reported using partitions between workstations
where physical distancing was not feasible, with eight of these providing
workers with face shields if partitions could not be installed. Eleven
companies reported altering employee workstations by installing
plexiglass barriers or plastic sheeting between workers. In addition, four
of these companies reported installing barriers in common areas, such as
cafeterias, break rooms, or bathrooms. During our visit to one plant, we
observed partitions between workers on either side, but not between
workers standing across from one another.
A photo provided to us by an industry group and another by a state
agency show partitions placed on either side of workers standing in close
proximity, with one showing a partial partition across from workers (see
fig. 4 and fig. 5).
40CDC/OSHA joint guidance recommended that employers erect partitions between
workers standing side-by-side and also between workers standing across from one
another.
Page 20 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 4: Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers Standing in Close Proximity
Page 21 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 5: Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers and a Partial Partition
Separating Workers across from Each Other
Note: GAO added a dotted line and a caption to make visible the partial partition between workers
facing each other.
We also obtained worker perspectives about barriers through interviews
and reviews of relevant literature. Workers we spoke with expressed
concerns with how plants established and used physical barriers (see
Worker Experience: Barriers and Physical Distancing sidebar). For
example, 14 workers from six companies said some workers’ jobs
required them to regularly step away from between the barriers
throughout the day, thereby reducing their benefit, and one worker said
that the placement of the plastic dividers was not effective because some
workers in his plant were still grouped together within them.
Masks, Temperature Checks, Sick Leave, and Other Company
Measures. Meat and poultry companies also reported taking a variety of
other protective measures recommended by the joint CDC/OSHA interim
guidance. The guidance recommends masking and screening employees
for COVID-19 (such as by conducting temperature checks) and that
employers review leave and incentive policies, among other things. CDC
states that masking is effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19,
and all 15 companies responding to our survey reported providing masks
and requiring their employees to wear them. The workers we interviewed
Page 22 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
said that early in the pandemic, plants’ mask requirements varied, and
Worker Experience: Temperature Checks
that throughout the pandemic, workers’ mask use was inconsistent. Nine
One worker told us that the policy at her plant
required workers who felt sick to come to work workers from three companies said that at the start of the pandemic,
and have their temperature taken. If a worker masks were optional, and then as workers became ill, mask use became
walked through a scanner and showed a required.41 In its reports of its plant walk-throughs, CDC also found
temperature, they were sent to the nurse, who
would take their temperature with a hand-held inconsistencies in masking policies and practices.
thermometer. As the pandemic progressed
and workers arrived with fevers, the worker
said the company decided nobody would be We also asked companies in our survey if they checked temperatures at
sent home unless they had a temperature of plant entrances, and all 15 reported doing so. Five workers at four
101 degrees or higher.
companies also reported that COVID-19 screening measures at their
The plant nurse told the worker we spoke with
that this was very stressful, since some plants, such as temperature checks, were not very effective and that
people only contracted low-grade fevers with plants inconsistently enforced these measures (see sidebar).42 For more
COVID-19, and could still come to work and
spread it to others. This worker said she
examples of what workers said about masking and temperature checks,
witnessed a higher-level manager tell an see appendix II.
employee who had a fever to go back to the
floor. According to the worker, the employee
felt sick, and the manager said, “Well you’re Some meat and poultry workers received a variety of benefits related to
wearing a mask, aren’t you? Go back to the sick leave and pay during the pandemic. For instance, in March 2020, the
floor; you’ll do fine.”
Source: Interview with plant worker | GAO-23-105104
United Food and Commercial Workers union reported securing bonuses
from meat and poultry companies for their members, as well as extra
41In August 2021, FSIS, whose employees are present in these plants and exposed to
plant conditions, issued a directive stating that plant workers had to wear masks when
inspectors were present because it found that at least 25 percent of the facilities where
FSIS inspectors are present either did not have a masking policy or were not enforcing
their masking policy. FSIS Notice: FSIS Actions at Establishments That Do Not Follow
Mask Requirements 34-21, August 20, 2021. FSIS canceled this directive on March 1,
2022.
42Studies published after the joint CDC/OSHA guidance was first issued showed that
screening for fever using temperature checks may not be effective at preventing the
spread of the COVID-19 virus, because many people with the virus experience mild
symptoms or no symptoms. The studies also indicate that if people use fever-reducing
medication, they may avoid detection and contribute to the spread of COVID-19 in the
workplace. Nuertey, Benjamin Demah et al. “Performance of COVID-19 associated
symptoms and temperature checking as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection.” PloS
ONE vol. 16,9 e0257450. 17 Sep. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257450;
and Facente, S.N., Hunter, L.A., Packel, L.J. et al. “Feasibility and effectiveness of daily
temperature screening to detect COVID-19 in a prospective cohort at a large public
university.” BMC Public Health 21, 1693 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-
11697-6. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates non-contact
temperature assessment devices, also includes infection without fever and the use of
fever-reducing medications as limitations to the use of temperature screening devices to
detect COVID-19. See Food and Drug Administration, “Non-contact Temperature
Assessment Devices During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Downloaded on 3/13/23. Content
now archived: see https://public4.pagefreezer.com/browse/FDA/04-08-
2022T09:32/https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-
devices/non-contact-temperature-assessment-devices-during-covid-19-pandemic.
Page 23 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
weekly pay and up to 2 weeks of paid leave for COVID-related absences.
Among companies responding to our survey, all 15 reported changing
their sick leave policies to accommodate workers, with four providing
various incentives. All 15 companies reported they became more liberal
with their sick leave and less strict about absenteeism. For examples of
changes companies reported making to their sick leave policies and
incentives provided to workers, see appendix II.
Fourteen workers from eight companies noted that employers offered
attendance bonuses during the pandemic, and that the bonuses
encouraged workers to come to work sick.43 Some of the workers we
spoke to told us that their companies use an attendance point system that
disciplines workers for taking unscheduled leave.44 Fourteen workers from
six companies said their companies continued to use a point system
during the pandemic, requiring workers to come to work ill or receive
points. For more examples of what workers told us about company sick
leave policies and incentives, see appendix II.
We also asked workers about the effects of absenteeism on their work
during COVID-19. Sixteen workers from five companies said that because
of high absenteeism, they had to take on the work of absent colleagues,
work faster or longer, and perform unfamiliar jobs. Ten workers from four
companies said that high absenteeism resulted in them performing work
at more than one workstation, reducing the benefit of plastic barriers. In
addition, another worker said plant management would assign
inexperienced workers to fill in on the production line for those who were
out sick. Similarly, one worker advocate said that during COVID-19,
workers were performing jobs they were not trained to do.
While all 15 companies responding to our survey reported providing
workers with information about COVID-19 and their planned response,
worker interviews indicated that some vital information was not well
communicated by management at their plants. For example, 15 workers
from four companies said their management did not share information
about COVID-19 risks, and 21 workers from eight companies said
management did not notify them when coworkers were ill. For more
43Two worker advocacy groups also told us that companies that provided bonuses for
working early in the pandemic may have had the negative effect of encouraging plant
workers to come to work sick, thereby adding to the spread of COVID-19.
44An attendance point system is a policy that disciplines employees by assigning a point
or multiple points for each unscheduled, unapproved absence, and may result in
termination after accruing a defined number of points.
Page 24 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
examples of what workers said about employer communication about
COVID-19, see appendix II.
Among the survey responses from companies, we identified commonly
reported challenges in preventing the spread of COVID-19 among
workers. These reported challenges included:
1. an inability to control workers’ behavior and community exposure
outside the plant;
2. difficulty convincing workers about vaccine safety; and
3. inconsistent vaccine mandates and messaging across states.45
OSHA Increased Inspections of Meat and
Poultry Plants during the Pandemic, but Faced
Enforcement Challenges
Increased Complaints and Reports of Hazardous
Conditions in Response to the Pandemic led OSHA to
Conduct 162 Inspections, Resulting in 15 COVIDrelated
Violations
OSHA conducts inspections in response to reports from employers,
employees, and others (see sidebar below).46 Based on evidence
gathered during an inspection, OSHA evaluates whether the employer
violated any safety and health standards, and may issue a citation that
includes proposed financial penalties, or a hazard alert letter.47
45Companies were asked to indicate the top three challenges moving forward to prevent
the spread of COVID-19 among workers. We identified these themes on average, in at
least eight of 15 company responses.
46For the purposes of this section, we use “reports” to refer to all of the various ways that
OSHA learns of potential workplace hazards, including those required under law. OSHA
may also plan inspections of companies based on injury incidence rates, previous citation
history, or random selection.
47If a standard does not apply and all criteria for issuing a general duty clause citation are
not met, yet the area office director determines the hazard warrants some type of
notification, OSHA’s Field Operations Manual states that a hazard alert letter should be
sent to the employer and employee representative describing the hazard and suggesting
corrective action.
Page 25 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Reports to OSHA
From February 2020 through June 2022, OSHA received a total of 316
COVID-related reports in the meat and poultry processing industry. These
Sources of Reports of Potential Workplace
reports included 139 complaints, 27 employer reports, 53 non-employer
Hazards to OSHA referrals, and 97 reports of fatalities.48 COVID-related reports increased
OSHA generally learns of alleged workplace from eight in March 2020 to 77 in April 2020 (see fig. 6).
hazards in four ways, including those required
under law:
Complaints from employees, their
representatives, or others;
Employer reports of work-related injuries
and illnesses, which employers are required
to submit to OSHA;
Non-Employer referrals from selected
entities such as local government agencies or
media outlets; and
Fatality reports from employers, and less
frequently from other sources such as the
media.
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA documentation
|GAO-23-105104
48Employers are required to report all work-related in-patient hospitalizations,
amputations, and losses of an eye within 24 hours. 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(a)(2). In addition,
employers are required to report the work-related death of an employee to OSHA within 8
hours. 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(a)(1). According to OSHA officials, most reports of fatalities
come from employers. However, officials noted that they do receive reports of fatalities
from other sources, such as the media or emergency medical personnel. In this report we
refer to all reported fatalities as “reports of fatalities” or “fatality reports.” Data throughout
this report include enforcement activity performed by OSHA only and not by state
agencies that operate under OSHA-approved state plans. OSHA has recorded data
related to COVID-19 in the workplace since February 2020.
Page 26 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 6: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), Meat and Poultry Industry, COVID- and Non-COVID-
Related, February 2020 through June 2022
Accessible Data for Figure 6: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Meat and Poultry Industry,
COVID- and Non-COVID-Related, February 2020 through June 2022
Date COVID-related reports Non-COVID related reports
Feb 2020 0 32
Mar 2020 8 36
Apr 2020 77 40
May 2020 54 33
Jun 2020 29 43
Jul 2020 28 33
Aug 2020 12 37
Sep 2020 16 30
Oct 2020 7 34
Nov 2020 13 31
Dec 2020 10 26
Page 27 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Date COVID-related reports Non-COVID related reports
Jan 2021 11 41
Feb 2021 11 39
Mar 2021 6 46
Apr 2021 2 21
May 2021 1 34
Jun 2021 0 40
Jul 2021 1 36
Aug 2021 8 31
Sep 2021 6 34
Oct 2021 3 28
Nov 2021 4 33
Dec 2021 5 33
Jan 2022 3 37
Feb 2022 1 26
Mar 2022 0 32
Apr 2022 0 28
May 2022 0 34
Jun 2022 0 39
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA enforcement data. | GAO-23-105104
Notes: For the purposes of this section, we use “reports” to refer to the various ways that OSHA
learns of potential workplace hazards, including those required under law. OSHA generally learns of
such hazards in four ways: complaints, which are reports made by employees, their representatives,
or others; employer reports, which are reports of severe work-related injuries and illnesses, which
employers are required to submit; non-employer referrals, which are reports of potential workplace
hazards from entities, such as local government agencies or media outlets; and reports of fatalities,
from employers as well as media or emergency medical personnel. Employers are required to report
all work-related in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye within 24 hours (29
C.F.R. § 1904.39(a)(2)); and the work-related death of an employee within 8 hours (29 C.F.R. §
1904.39(a)(1)). Data throughout this report include enforcement activity performed by OSHA only, not
by the 21 state agencies that operate under OSHA-approved state plans.
In the first year of the pandemic—from February 2020 to January 2021—
total reports to OSHA about the meat and poultry industry increased by
57 percent compared to the previous 12-month period (from 434 to 681),
Page 28 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
with sharp increases in non-employer referrals and fatality reports (see
fig. 7).49
Figure 7: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), by Type, Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020
through January 2021, Compared to Previous 12-Month Period
49OSHA began tracking COVID-related reports in February 2020. We are identifying the
first year of the pandemic as February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021. We previously
reported on issues related to the incubation period of the virus and difficulties in tracking
the source of the exposure, and implications for employer reporting and determinations
about whether fatalities are work-related. See GAO-21-265.
Page 29 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 7: Reports of Potential Workplace Hazards to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), by Type, Meat and Poultry
Industry, February 2020 through January 2021, Compared to Previous 12-Month
Period
Category Feb 2019-Jan 2020 Feb 2020-Jan 2021
All reports 434 0
All reports 416 (COVID-related) 265 (Non-COVID)
Complaints 161 0
Complaints 139 (COVID-related) 115(Non-COVID)
Employer reports 229 0
Employer reports 230 (COVID-related) 19 (Non-COVID)
Non-employer referrals 29 0
Non-employer referrals 16 (COVID-related) 49 (Non-COVID)
Fatality reports 15 0
Fatality reports 31 (COVID-related) 82 (Non-COVID)
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA enforcement data. | GAO-23-105104
Notes: For the purposes of this section, we use “reports” to refer to the various ways that OSHA
learns of potential workplace hazards. OSHA generally learns of such workplace hazards in four
ways: complaints, which are reports made by employees, their representatives, or others; employer
reports, which are reports of severe work-related injuries and illnesses, which employers are required
to submit; non-employer referrals, which are reports of potential workplace hazards from entities,
such as local government agencies or media outlets; and reports of fatalities, from employers as well
as media or emergency medical personnel. Employers are required to report all work-related in-
patient hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye within 24 hours (29 C.F.R. §
1904.39(a)(2)); and the work-related death of an employee within 8 hours (29 C.F.R. §
1904.39(a)(1)). Data throughout this report include enforcement activity performed by OSHA only,
and not by the 21 state agencies that operate under OSHA-approved state plans. We previously
reported on issues related to the incubation period of the virus and difficulties in tracking the source of
the exposure, and implications for employer reporting and determinations about whether fatalities are
work-related. See GAO-21-265.
For the entire period we examined, February 2020 through June 2022,
OSHA received 97 COVID-related fatality reports about meat and poultry
Page 30 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
plants.50 Of these, 42 were attributable to a single company. Company
representatives said the company opted to report all COVID-related
fatalities of workers who had been in the workplace within 30 days of the
fatality, regardless of whether a determination related to work exposure
had been made.51 More than half of the COVID-related fatality reports for
meat and poultry in the first year of the pandemic were received from
April 2020 through June 2020.
Officials from one area office said the overall volume of reports gradually
decreased, as employers’ awareness of the pandemic increased in
response to the agency’s training and abatement measures.52
OSHA Inspections
In response to these COVID-related reports, from February 2020 through
June 2022, OSHA conducted 162 COVID-related inspections of meat and
poultry facilities, including 126 on-site inspections and 36 remote
inspections.53 In the first year of the pandemic—from February 2020
through January 2021—OSHA’s total inspections of meat and poultry
50Under 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(a)(1), employers are required to notify OSHA when an
employee is killed as a result of a work-related incident. In May 2020, OSHA stated in its
Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease that under
OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements, COVID-19 is a reportable illness and employers are
responsible for recording if the case is 1) a confirmed COVID-19 illness, 2) work-related,
and 3) involves one or more of the recording criteria set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1904.7. In its
Frequently Asked Questions about Reporting Work-Related Cases of the Coronavirus,
OSHA noted that employers must report fatalities for work-related confirmed cases of
COVID-19 if the fatality occurred within 30 days of an exposure to COVID-19 at work. See
29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(b)(6). Fatalities must be reported within 8 hours from when OSHA
learned of the work-related fatality.
51Company officials said that they made no determination if the COVID-related fatalities
were work-related.
52We interviewed officials at this area office about worker safety for previous reports,
including GAO-21-265 and GAO-22-105051.
53In addition to inspections, OSHA conducts informal inquiries to respond to complaints,
referrals, or employer reports of severe injury or illness that do not meet OSHA’s criteria
for conducting inspections. According to OSHA’s Field Operations Manual, if area
directors consider employers’ responses to these informal inquiries to be inadequate, they
may initiate a related inspection. During the period we examined, OSHA conducted 23
informal COVID-related inquiries of meat and poultry facilities that did not result in
inspections. OSHA also conducted 370 informal inquiries of meat and poultry facilities
during this time frame in response to non-COVID-related reports. While OSHA conducted
informal inquiries prior to the pandemic, it did not conduct remote inspections before that
time.
Page 31 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
facilities increased by about 20 percent over the previous year.54 COVID-
related inspections, which began in April 2020, rose sharply early in the
pandemic and then declined.55 Non-COVID-related inspections dropped
early in the pandemic and then gradually increased (see fig. 8).
Figure 8: COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Inspections, Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020
through June 2022
54DOL’s Office of Inspector General identified a significant decrease in OSHA inspections
of all industries from February 1, 2020 through October 26, 2020 as compared to a similar
period in 2019. See U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General Office, Office
of Audit, 19-21-003-10-105, Feb. 25, 2021.
55COVID-related inspections may result in COVID-related and non-COVID-related
violations.
Page 32 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Accessible Data for Figure 8: COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) Inspections, Meat and Poultry Industry, February
2020 through June 2022
Date COVID related inspections Non-COVID related
inspections
Feb 2020 23
Mar 2020 8
Apr 2020 9 3
May 2020 29 2
Jun 2020 17 10
Jul 2020 16 10
Aug 2020 3 7
Sep 2020 6 8
Oct 2020 8 11
Nov 2020 4 8
Dec 2020 4 8
Jan 2021 7 13
Feb 2021 6 14
Mar 2021 6 17
Apr 2021 9 11
May 2021 4 12
Jun 2021 4 13
Jul 2021 1 9
Aug 2021 5 4
Sep 2021 5 6
Oct 2021 3 12
Nov 2021 6 15
Dec 2021 3 12
Jan 2022 2 15
Feb 2022 0 14
Mar 2022 0 17
Apr 2022 2 12
May 2022 0 21
Jun 2022 3 13
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA enforcement data. | GAO-23-105104
Note: OSHA has recorded data related to COVID-19 in the workplace since February 2020.
Page 33 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
In March 2021, OSHA initiated a COVID-19 National Emphasis Program
to target its inspections of industries with a higher risk of exposure to
COVID-19.56 As of June 2022, OSHA conducted 50 COVID-related meat
and poultry inspections in conjunction with this program, including 40
unprogrammed inspections and 10 programmed inspections.57 These 50
inspections are included in the COVID-related inspection data above. See
text box for summaries of selected inspections of meat processing
facilities during the pandemic.
Examples of Recent COVID-related OSHA Inspections of Meat Processing Plants
OSHA’s Inspection of a Meat Plant in Response to a Complaint
In April 2021, OSHA conducted an on-site inspection of a large meat plant in response
to a complaint alleging, among other things, a lack of physical distancing; as well as
concerns about sick leave, training, and information sharing. During the inspection,
OSHA reviewed employee health records and other documentation. Plant management
described several mitigation measures, such as temperature-taking, voluntary testing,
and contact tracing, and developed a group texting platform to communicate new
policies or changed work practices to workers. The plant reported on its injury and
illness log that it had five workers with work-acquired COVID-19 in 2020. OSHA found
that most elements necessary for compliance with CDC and OSHA requirements were
present. OSHA issued no citations.
OSHA Inspection of a Meat Plant in Response to a Media Report
In May 2020, OSHA conducted an on-site inspection of a large meat plant in response
to a media report alleging hundreds of positive cases of COVID-19 and up to six
deaths. While the employer required masks and physical distancing, and posted signs
in several languages about hygiene practices, among other things, OSHA found that
these practices were not followed consistently. OSHA also found that the employer was
not able to communicate effectively with workers because management could not
accommodate other languages workers spoke. OSHA also identified concerns with
COVID-19 screening and testing, social distancing, COVID-related leave, and contact
tracing practices. OSHA cited a general duty clause violation and a recordkeeping
violation and proposed a penalty of $15,615. The company contested the citation. In
May 2022, OSHA and the company finalized a settlement requiring the company to take
abatement actions to address social distancing and protective measures and provide
documentation of these actions. OSHA agreed to withdraw the general duty clause
citation and adjusted the penalty to $14,502.
56Typically, emphasis programs focus inspections on a particular safety or health hazard
or a specific industry. As part of the COVID-19 National Emphasis Program, OSHA
targeted establishments for these inspections based in part on summary injury and illness
data. In July 2021, OSHA updated its National Emphasis Program to include an added
focus to protect workers from retaliation. In June 2022, OSHA extended the program until
further notice and raised its goal of inspections conducted under the program from 5
percent of all OSHA inspections to 10 percent.
57Unprogrammed inspections are conducted in response to complaints, referrals, and
other reports. Programmed inspections are planned based on injury incidence rates,
previous citation history, or random selection. From February 2020 through June 2022,
about 92 percent of meat and poultry inspections were unprogrammed, compared to 83
percent from February 2018 through January 2020.
Page 34 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) documentation. | GAO-23-105104
Violations
From February 2020 through June 2022, OSHA conducted 328 non-
COVID-related meat and poultry plant inspections that led to 516 non-
COVID-related violations. The 162 COVID-related meat and poultry plant
inspections that OSHA conducted led to 15 COVID-related violations (see
fig. 9).
Figure 9: Total COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Violations, Meat and Poultry Industry, February 2020
through June 2022
Accessible Data for Figure 9: Total COVID- and Non-COVID-Related Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Violations, Meat and Poultry Industry,
February 2020 through June 2022
Date COVID related violations Non-COVID related
violations
Feb 2020 0 35
Mar 2020 0 20
Page 35 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Date COVID related violations Non-COVID related
violations
Apr 2020 0 15
May 2020 0 23
Jun 2020 0 10
Jul 2020 0 14
Aug 2020 0 20
Sep 2020 3 9
Oct 2020 4 3
Nov 2020 0 25
Dec 2020 2 4
Jan 2021 0 11
Feb 2021 3 4
Mar 2021 0 7
Apr 2021 0 8
May 2021 0 12
Jun 2021 0 23
Jul 2021 0 62
Aug 2021 0 36
Sep 2021 0 36
Oct 2021 0 4
Nov 2021 0 9
Dec 2021 0 10
Jan 2022 0 14
Feb 2022 0 11
Mar 2022 0 23
Apr 2022 0 34
May 2022 0 7
Jun 2022 3 27
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA enforcement data. | GAO-23-105104
Notes: Dates for violations represent the dates violations were issued. According to OSHA officials,
the increase in non-COVID violations in July 2021 reflects three inspections with a large number of
violations that were issued during that month.
Page 36 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
OSHA Officials Told Us Protecting Meat and Poultry
Workers Was Difficult Because Existing Standards Do Not
Address Airborne Infectious Diseases
Challenges Related to Enforcing Standards
OSHA officials said protecting meat and poultry workers was difficult
because existing standards often are not applicable to COVID-19.
Officials at five of seven OSHA area offices we met with said that without
an applicable standard that covers meat and poultry workers, it is difficult
to issue citations.58 Eleven of the 15 COVID-related violations OSHA cited
from February 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022, were issued in response
to violations of OSHA’s standards. For the remaining four violations,
OSHA cited the general duty clause (see discussion below). OSHA cited
the 11 violations at four meat and two poultry plants and assessed just
over $51,000 in penalties (see app. III for additional details).59 The 11
violations consisted of:
· Eight recordkeeping violations, such as recording injuries and
illnesses in a company’s OSHA log;60 and
58In October 2021, we reported that OSHA inspectors had described similar challenges
across all industries. In that report, we also noted that the preamble to the health care
ETS issued in June 2021 stated that OSHA’s efforts to enforce existing standards to
address the COVID-19 hazard have been significantly hindered by the absence of any
specific requirements related to some of the most important COVID-19 mitigation
measures. See GAO-22-105051.
59OSHA assesses financial penalties for violations based on various factors outlined in
statute and OSHA policy. For example, after January 15, 2023, violations determined to
be serious are subject to penalties of up to $15,625 per violation, and violations
determined to be willful or repeated are subject to penalties of up to $156,259 per
violation. See 88 Fed. Reg. 2,210, 2,217-18 (Jan. 13, 2023) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. §
1903.15(d)). Some of these cases may still be open and may have been contested or
appealed by the employers, which could ultimately result in changes to the violations cited
or penalties issued. In addition, under the OSH Act, OSHA has 6 months from the
occurrence of a violation to issue a citation and any related penalties, so totals for the
number of violations cited and penalties issued from February 2020 through June 2022
may not reflect the total that will eventually be cited or issued related to inspections
initiated during those months. These data are current as of June 30, 2022.
60In January 2021, we reported that employers did not report any summary injury and
illness data on more than one-half of their establishments that we estimated met OSHA’s
reporting requirements. See GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Actions Needed to
Improve Reporting of Summary Injury and Illness Data, GAO-21-122 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 27, 2020).
Page 37 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
· Three personal protective equipment violations related to the use of
personal protective equipment, such as training employees to use
respirators.61
During an inspection of a beef plant in Nebraska, for example, OSHA
cited the employer for failing to have a respiratory protection program,
conduct evaluations of an employee’s ability to use a respirator, test
respirators to ensure they fit correctly, train employees to use respirators,
and provide N95 masks to workers who were conducting temperature
screenings. OSHA cited a serious violation and proposed a penalty of
$13,653 for failing to provide N95 masks.
The most common COVID-related violations that OSHA cited during its
inspections of meat and poultry plants were associated with reporting and
recording injuries and illnesses, which OSHA did not determine to be
serious violations.62 For example, in one COVID-related inspection at a
Texas plant, OSHA found that the company had not recorded several
instances of work-related COVID-19 illness and fatalities and did not
report to OSHA within 8 hours of a COVID-19 fatality that resulted from a
work-related incident. OSHA cited an other-than-serious violation and
assessed the company more than $11,500 in proposed penalties.
Challenges Related to the General Duty Clause
In the absence of a specific standard targeting COVID-related hazards,
officials from three of seven OSHA area offices we met with said they
cited employers for violations of the general duty clause. In addition to the
11 violations of standards discussed above, OSHA cited four COVID-
related general duty clause violations to meat employers and none to
poultry employers from February 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022. These
four citations resulted in total proposed penalties of about $78,000.
61OSHA also cited four violations of the “general duty clause”—the statutory provision
requiring each employer to provide employees with employment and places of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm to the employees. 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). The
“general duty clause” can be used when no standards apply to a hazard and certain
criteria are met. See discussion below.
62A serious violation exists when there is a substantial probability that the workplace
hazard could most likely result in death or serious physical harm, unless the employer did
not know or could not, with reasonable diligence, have known of the violation.
Page 38 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
The employers contested the citations in all four cases. After negotiations
with each cited company, OSHA agreed to withdraw three of the four
violations and change the remaining violation—which resulted from an
inspection of a large meat plant in South Dakota—to a personal protective
equipment violation, and reduce the penalties by about one third.63 In the
South Dakota inspection, OSHA reported that over 1,200 workers had
been infected and four workers had died of complications related to the
virus. OSHA inspection documentation stated that the company failed to
develop or implement timely measures to mitigate employees’ exposure,
and assessed a proposed penalty of $13,494. This company contested
the general duty clause citation, and the case was settled in October
2021. In the settlement, the company agreed to implement an infectious
disease preparedness plan at all of its processing facilities. In the
settlement, OSHA agreed to change the citation to a violation of the
personal protective equipment standard, and did not change the amount
of the penalty.
Citing a violation of the general duty clause can be challenging because
inspectors typically need to gather considerable evidence to support this
type of violation.64 OSHA area and regional office officials noted
challenges to citing the general duty clause for COVID-related meat and
poultry inspections. For example:
· If a company has taken any steps to implement COVID-related
guidance, even if taking additional measures could have further
protected workers, it can be difficult to issue a citation under the
general duty clause.65 For example, one OSHA official said that if an
employer provided masks, checked temperatures, and staggered shift
63We do not include this violation of the personal protective equipment standard in our
discussion of standards above because it was the result of a settlement rather than a
citation for a violation issued directly by OSHA. Although the negotiations associated with
the fourth general duty clause citation were completed at the time we received the dataset
from OSHA, we are including it in our counts of violations for the sake of consistency.
64See GAO-18-12 and GAO-22-105711.
65In October 2021, we reported that OSHA stated in the preamble to its healthcare ETS
that in many cases during the pandemic, inspectors found that employers were following
some minimal COVID-19 mitigation strategy, while ignoring other crucial components of
employee protection. We reported that the preamble noted that in such instances,
because the employer had taken some steps to protect workers, successfully proving a
general duty clause citation would have required OSHA to show that the additional
missing measures would have further materially reduced the COVID-19 hazard.
GAO-22-105051.
Page 39 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
changes, inspectors could not say the company failed to meet its
responsibilities under the general duty clause, even if there were other
steps the plant may have taken.66
· OSHA officials cited the rapidly changing guidance on how to respond
to the virus as a challenge, since inspectors could use this guidance—
including the joint CDC/OSHA guidance for meat and poultry workers
and employers—to establish support for general duty clause
citations.67 One area office official said that each update to COVID-
related information and guidance required adjustments by OSHA and
the meat and poultry industry.68
Issuing Hazard Alert Letters When Standards Do Not Apply
OSHA may issue hazard alert letters when OSHA does not have enough
evidence for a citation. These letters warn employers about the danger of
specific workplace hazards and provide information on how to protect
workers. OSHA issued 39 COVID-related hazard alert letters to meat and
poultry employers between February 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022.
According to officials in one OSHA area office, hazard alert letters put
companies on notice and, when necessary, give OSHA more leverage to
move to a general duty clause violation in a follow-up inspection if the
hazard persists.
Officials at the area office also said that they primarily issued hazard alert
letters during COVID-related inspections because there was no specific
regulation outlining the steps required to address COVID-related hazards.
For example, at a plant in Nebraska, more than 1,700 workers contracted
COVID-19 and three workers died of the virus. OSHA found that the
employer potentially exposed healthy employees to employees who were
66In April 2020, OSHA stated that the agency would take employers’ attempts to comply in
good faith into strong consideration when determining whether to cite a COVID-related
violation, and added that the agency might issue a citation if it found an employer could
not demonstrate any efforts to comply. This “good faith effort” policy ended in July 2021,
when OSHA determined it was no longer needed. We reported in October 2021 that
OSHA inspectors had different understandings of how to track this citation discretion,
making it difficult to assess its impact. GAO-22-105051.
67Inspectors could use OSHA guidance to provide support that a hazard was recognized
and that there was a feasible means of abatement for the hazard.
68In October 2021, we noted a similar challenge and recommended that OSHA assess
various challenges related to communications and guidance. The recommendation
remained open as of May 31, 2023. See GAO-22-105051.
Page 40 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
COVID-19 positive, allowed some employees to work within 6 feet of
each other without barriers, failed to disinfect commonly touched
surfaces, and failed to develop an effective contact tracing program.
However, OSHA did not cite a violation and instead issued a hazard alert
letter.
Additional Efforts to Develop New Standards and Protect Workers
According to OSHA officials, OSHA is developing an infectious disease
standard for healthcare and healthcare support workers and has not
considered developing a similar standard to protect meat and poultry
workers from airborne infectious disease.69 According to the Fall 2022
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, the agency
intends to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this standard by
September 2023. The officials also said that while this standard was
never intended to cover workers in non-healthcare settings, it would cover
settings such as health units within meat and poultry plants. OSHA is also
working to develop a permanent COVID-19 healthcare standard based on
its Occupational Exposure to COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings ETS.
According to OSHA officials, this standard will not include meat and
poultry workers but may cover settings such as health units within meat
and poultry plants.70
OSHA recognizes the widespread effect of COVID-19 on industries
beyond healthcare. In its March 2021 interim enforcement response plan,
OSHA updated its pandemic-related enforcement policy by expanding the
higher risk designation for COVID-19 exposure from healthcare settings
to any workplace that could be crowded or involve a high level of
interaction with people, such as meat and poultry processing. In May
2022, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health testified that OSHA would continue to inspect non-healthcare high-
risk industries under the COVID-19 National Emphasis Program.
However, as noted above, OSHA officials found citing hazards resulting
69This standard has been under development since 2010. In April 2012, we reported that
on average, from 1981 through 2010, it took OSHA nearly 8 years to develop and issue
standards. See GAO-12-330.
70According to OSHA, the Occupational Exposure to COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings
ETS served as a proposed rule on which the public could comment. OSHA held a public
hearing in late April 2022 and accepted comments through late May 2022. OSHA officials
told us that as of September 2022, they were working on finalizing the permanent
standard. The ETS focuses on protecting healthcare and healthcare support service
workers from occupational exposure to COVID-19 in settings where people with COVID-
19 are reasonably expected to be present.
Page 41 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
from COVID-19 difficult, and only one of the 50 inspections conducted
under this national emphasis program at meat and poultry plants between
March 2021 and June 2022 resulted in a citation.
As discussed earlier, the CDC’s NIOSH conducts occupational safety and
health research and workplace evaluations, and makes recommendations
to prevent worker injuries and illnesses. Importantly, NIOSH also may
recommend standards for OSHA’s adoption, or could provide assistance
if OSHA were to consider standards for meat and poultry workers. NIOSH
has also studied the effect of COVID-19 on meat and poultry workers in
44 counties across 19 states since February 2020. NIOSH officials told us
a broader approach to infectious diseases—not limited to a specific
disease or occupation—might better prepare the nation for future
outbreaks, given the outbreaks of COVID-19 among meat and poultry
workers and workers in other non-healthcare occupations.
OSHA Continues to Face Challenges Ensuring the Safety
and Health of Meat and Poultry Workers
As described above, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted existing
hazardous conditions in meat and poultry plants, such as overcrowding.
Although the meat and poultry industry is part of the broader category of
manufacturing, the most recent data available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics show that injury and illness rates for meat and poultry workers
continued to be higher than for all manufacturing workers through 2021
(see fig. 10).71
71According to documentation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, increases in the
respiratory illness case rate—driven by COVID-related illness—caused injury and illness
rates reported in their survey to increase in 2020.
Page 42 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Figure 10: Injury and Illness Rates in the Meat and Poultry Industry, Compared with
Rates in All U.S. Manufacturing, Calendar Years 2014-2021
Accessible Data for Figure 10: Injury and Illness Rates in the Meat and Poultry
Industry, Compared with Rates in All U.S. Manufacturing, Calendar Years 2014-2021
(Total recordable case rate (Cases per 100 workers)
Meat and poultry industry All U.S. manufacturing
Date Upper limit Cases Lower limit Upper limit Cases Lower limit
(At 95% per 100 (At 95% (At 95% per 100 (At 95%
confidence workers confidence confidence workers confidence
level) level) level) level)
2014 5.67248 5.5 5.32752 4.05488 4 3.94512
2015 5.516424 5.4 5.283576 3.85214 3.8 3.74786
2016 5.518148 5.3 5.081852 3.64939 3.6 3.55061
2017 4.950528 4.8 4.649472 3.55488 3.5 3.44512
2018 4.443276 4.3 4.156724 3.45331 3.4 3.34669
2019 4.14896 4 3.85104 3.35821 3.3 3.24179
2020 7.080828 6.7 6.319172 3.14861 3.1 3.05139
2021 6.142844 5.9 5.657156 3.351744 3.3 3.248256
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics injury and illness data. | GAO-23-105104
Page 43 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Note: For both series, the upper and lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence level are shown in
gray.
Our past reports found that ensuring the safety and health of meat and
poultry workers has been an ongoing challenge for the agency. For
example, in 2005 and again in 2016, we reported that meat and poultry
workers faced hazardous conditions, such as tasks associated with
musculoskeletal disorders, exposure to chemicals and pathogens, and
traumatic injuries from machines and tools. Meat and poultry workers’
vulnerability, and their resulting fear of speaking up, may make it difficult
for OSHA to learn about and respond to hazards including COVID-19.72
OSHA data also suggest that COVID-19 affected the meat and poultry
industry more than it did the manufacturing industry as a whole.
· Reports to OSHA about meat and poultry plants increased 57 percent
during the first year of the pandemic (February 2020 through January
2021), compared to the prior 12-month period (from 434 to 651), while
reports to OSHA about manufacturing facilities as a whole decreased
slightly (from 10,599 to 10,325).
· The 15 COVID-related meat and poultry violations made up over 40
percent of all of the COVID-related violations OSHA cited in the
manufacturing sector.73 When asked why the meat and poultry
industry comprised such a large proportion of the COVID-related
violations at manufacturing facilities, OSHA officials said that meat
and poultry establishments were more likely to be inspected because
the industry was included in the COVID-19 National Emphasis
Program, and the nature of the work required employees to be on site
and therefore more at risk for contracting COVID-19 in the workplace.
OSHA recognizes meat and poultry as a hazardous industry and has
taken some steps to address these hazards. Since 2017, the agency
implemented three local emphasis programs for meat processing and six
regional emphasis programs for poultry processing.74 OSHA also provides
72In 2017, we reported that workers said they may be less likely to seek treatment for
injuries and illnesses because of their vulnerable status as undocumented or foreign-born
workers and because of their economic vulnerability. See GAO-18-12.
73This includes 11 COVID-related violations of OSHA standards and 4 COVID-related
violations of the general duty clause.
74OSHA’s emphasis programs focus inspections on a particular safety or health hazard or
a specific industry. Other industries for which OSHA has implemented emphasis programs
include construction, tree and landscape operations, dairy farm operations, warehousing,
grain handling, logging, and the oil and gas industry, among others.
Page 44 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
information on its website about steps meat and poultry companies can
take to reduce the numerous workplace hazards their workers face. In
addition, OSHA conducted extensive outreach to the meat and poultry
industry, including forming partnerships with and providing compliance
assistance to the industry.75
To help OSHA more effectively address these hazardous conditions and
help enhance meat and poultry worker safety, we have made six
recommendations to DOL since 2016. DOL implemented one of these
recommendations, by developing an updated MOU with FSIS. DOL has
not implemented the other five, including a recommendation on tracking
the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders among meat and poultry
workers, providing guidance to meat and poultry plant medical units, and
determining the extent that bathroom access is a challenge for meat and
poultry workers and how to address any identified issues, among others
(see app. IV).76
While OSHA continues to face challenges ensuring the safety and health
of meat and poultry workers, OSHA also has the authority to assess the
need for standards to protect workers. Section 6(b) of the OSH Act
authorizes the Secretary of Labor to, “promulgate, modify, or revoke any
occupational safety or health standard” when they determine that doing
so would serve the objectives of the OSH Act, which include ensuring
employers provide their workers a place of employment free from
recognized hazards. In the past, OSHA has adopted standards for
specific industries, such as logging operations, to address hazards
associated with those industries.77 For example, OSHA’s final rule for
grain handling facilities, issued in 1987, focuses on the control of fires,
75In July 2020, OSHA formed an alliance with the North American Meat Institute—a trade
association that represents companies that produce beef, pork, veal, and turkey—to share
information and provide access to training resources.
76The five open recommendations include 1) developing and implementing a cost-
effective method for gathering more complete data on musculoskeletal disorders
(GAO-16-337); 2) studying how to regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among
sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry (GAO-16-337); 3) taking additional
steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive concerns during OSHA inspections of
meat and poultry plants (GAO-18-12); 4) gathering more information to determine the
extent to which bathroom access is a problem and how to address any identified issues
(GAO-18-12); and 5) updating OSHA’s guidance for employers on how to manage their
health units to address the challenges of managing these units (GAO-18-12). See
appendix IV for more information.
77See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.261-272.
Page 45 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
grain dust explosions, and other hazards associated with grain handling
facilities.78
OSHA officials told us that they have not considered a specific standard
for meat and poultry workers. Officials said that to consider regulatory
protections for these workers, the agency would need to assess whether
legal requirements under Section 6(b) of the OSH Act are met, such as
finding that there is a significant risk of material harm, among other
things. Officials also said that OSHA already has many standards that
protect workers in this industry, including use of personal protective
equipment, cleanliness of walking surfaces, and handling toxic and
hazardous substances.79 Despite these existing standards and emphasis
programs, the challenges noted in this and in our past reports remain.80
Without assessing the actions needed to better protect meat and poultry
workers—such as assessing the need for an industry standard—OSHA
may be missing an opportunity to help itself address multiple challenges
and strengthen its ability to ensure the safety and health of meat and
poultry workers.
OSHA and FSIS Missed Opportunities to
Collaborate during the Pandemic, and Did Not
Follow Most Leading Collaboration Practices
OSHA and FSIS Officials Met during the Pandemic, but
Missed Opportunities to Collaborate
FSIS officials said their agency met with OSHA officials several times
during the pandemic. In March 2020, officials from USDA’s Office of the
Secretary met with their OSHA counterparts to discuss mutual issues of
concern about how the COVID-19 pandemic was affecting the meat and
poultry industry, but FSIS was not involved in these meetings, according
to FSIS officials. FSIS officials said they met with OSHA officials in May
2020 to discuss how FSIS could best respond to new information about
COVID-19 transmission, and how FSIS should interpret and implement
78See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.272.
79See, e.g.: 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.132-.140; 1910.22-.30; and 1910.1000-.1499.
80See GAO-05-96, GAO-16-337, and GAO-18-12.
Page 46 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
updated CDC guidance on protecting workers. In January 2021, OSHA
and FSIS officials at the national office began meeting weekly, according
to FSIS officials. According to OSHA officials, this continued until
November 2021, when the agencies began meeting monthly. However,
the agencies did not document the results of these meetings, and officials
were unable to provide details such as what was discussed and what
collaboration activities occurred as a result.81
OSHA and FSIS missed opportunities to collaborate on worker safety in
these meetings by not including field staff, who had direct knowledge of
conditions at meat and poultry plants and who could have provided
information about protecting plant workers during the pandemic. OSHA
field-level officials from each of the seven area offices we met with said
they were not involved in such discussions. Similarly, FSIS Occupational
Safety and Health Specialists, who focus on FSIS inspector safety, said
they were not involved in discussions with OSHA.
OSHA and FSIS also missed opportunities to share information about
conditions in the plants. As stated above, OSHA conducted 162 COVID-
related inspections of meat and poultry plants from February 2020
through June 2022, 36 of which were remote. These remote OSHA
inspections were conducted via telephone, video conference, or email.
However, OSHA field-level officials we spoke with reported they did not
contact FSIS officials who were present in plants for them to identify
conditions that may affect workers, because OSHA policy does not call
for its inspectors to notify FSIS of planned plant inspections. FSIS field-
level officials we spoke with also reported no contact with their
counterparts at OSHA. We found that OSHA and FSIS officials in the field
generally were unaware of any collaboration activities during the
pandemic. A February 2021 DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG) report
that focused on all industries expressed concern that because OSHA
conducted some inspections remotely during the pandemic, workplace
hazards may have gone unidentified and unabated longer, leaving
employees vulnerable.82
81FSIS provided dates of meetings and a list of people invited to each meeting, but did not
provide documentation of what was discussed or decided.
82U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Report to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, COVID-19: Increased Worksite Complaints and
Reduced OSHA Inspections Leave U.S. Workers’ Safety at Increased Risk, Report
Number: 19-21-003-10-105 (Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, 2021).
Page 47 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
OSHA and FSIS also missed opportunities to share worker safety-related
documentation. FSIS safety committees in each circuit—a geographic
area containing a number of plants—meet twice a year to discuss safety
issues and conduct safety assessments, and FSIS officials said they do
not share the safety assessments with OSHA.83 OSHA officials said that
receiving FSIS reports of safety and health hazards could enhance safety
for both FSIS and plant employees. Beyond the safety assessments,
USDA’s OIG found that FSIS was unable to provide an accurate count of
the number of reports of safety or health hazards identified by its own
staff. The OIG recommended that FSIS record this information centrally.84
According to FSIS officials, the agency developed and used COVID-19
Situation Reports to track COVID-19 cases, including the status of FSIS
staff who tested positive for COVID-19. FSIS officials reported that they
did not share the information in these reports with OSHA.
In March 2022, DOL’s OIG reported that OSHA had not collaborated with
other federal agencies, including FSIS, to help safeguard mission-critical
U.S. workers during the pandemic.85 The OIG also reported that
enhanced collaboration between OSHA and other federal agencies—
including FSIS—with enforcement personnel on site in high-risk COVID-
83FSIS’s field operations are conducted by ten districts: Alameda, CA, covering Arizona,
California, and Nevada; Atlanta, GA, covering Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Chicago, IL, covering Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Ohio; Dallas, TX, covering Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; Denver, CO,
covering Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Northern Mariana
Islands, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; Des Moines, IA,
covering Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; Jackson, MS,
covering Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; Philadelphia, PA, covering
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont; Raleigh, NC, covering Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia; and Springdale, AR, covering
Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri. Each of these districts is comprised of some number of
circuits, or geographic areas, within each district. A circuit is an organizational structure of
plants and positions within an FSIS district designed to deliver program services and
provide supervision in an efficient and effective manner to in-plant personnel. According to
FSIS officials, each district has about 12-16 circuits, and each circuit has a safety
committee that meets twice a year.
84USDA, Office of Inspector General, COVID-19—Food Safety and Inspection Service
Pandemic Response at Establishments, Inspection Report 24801-0001-23 (Washington,
D.C., July 2022).
85U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Report to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), COVID-19: To Protect Mission Critical Workers,
OSHA Could Leverage Inspection Collaboration Opportunities With External Federal
Agencies, Report Number: 19-22-003-10-105 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 31, 2022).
Page 48 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
19 industries could have better protected workers. At the time, the OIG
reported that OSHA’s current MOUs—including the 1994 MOU with
FSIS—were ineffective for implementing a government-wide approach for
large-scale safety and health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.86
OSHA and FSIS Updated Their Worker Safety MOU in
2022 and Included COVID19 as a Serious Hazard, but
Did Not Incorporate Most Leading Collaboration Practices
OSHA and FSIS have had an MOU in place since 1994 to guide their
collaboration on worker safety, which includes training, information
sharing, and addressing referrals on workplace hazards. In August 2022,
following our 2017 recommendation, OSHA and FSIS issued an updated
worker safety MOU.87 Like its predecessor, the 2022 MOU states that the
agencies share a common goal of protecting worker safety and health in
FSIS-regulated establishments, and that this includes both FSIS food
safety inspectors and workers employed by meat and poultry companies.
The 2022 MOU highlights areas for collaboration between OSHA and
FSIS, including sharing data and information such as injury and illness
data, and referring serious workplace hazards to OSHA.88 In contrast to
the previous agreement, the updated MOU specifically identifies
86DOL’s OIG made two recommendations to OSHA to establish interagency collaboration
by devising a plan containing training and outreach, and using memoranda of
understanding or other written agreements. OSHA’s response stated it collaborated with
external agencies in numerous ways through workgroups and meetings. However, the
DOL OIG maintains that OSHA could have invested greater effort towards collaborating
with external agencies’ enforcement or oversight personnel to address challenges, and to
help ensure partner agencies referred easily identifiable safety and health hazards to
OSHA during large-scale safety and health events.
87In our 2017 report, GAO-18-12, we recommended that the two agencies assess their
implementation of the 1994 MOU, make any necessary changes to enhance collaboration,
and set specific time frames to periodically evaluate the MOU. In August 2022, the
agencies implemented our recommendation, which we had designated in 2018 as a
priority open recommendation to DOL and USDA.
88According to the 2022 MOU, as available, OSHA will provide aggregate injury and
illness data from FSIS-regulated establishments to FSIS. The agencies may use these
data to determine what training should be developed or emphasized for FSIS employees.
The 2022 MOU further provides that if FSIS becomes aware of a suspected or confirmed
disease outbreak, where there are animal or human cases of an infectious disease at an
FSIS-regulated establishment that could affect worker safety and health, FSIS will inform
OSHA. When feasible, according to the MOU, the agencies will coordinate efforts to abate
the resulting worker safety and health hazards.
Page 49 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, as hazards that FSIS should
refer to OSHA. The 2022 MOU also states that it will be in effect for 5
years, that OSHA and FSIS will review implementation of the MOU
annually, and that the two agencies will keep each other informed of any
changes that affect the MOU throughout the year. OSHA and FSIS
officials told us they formed an interagency workgroup, which met in
December 2022, to implement the MOU, and said that the workgroup
would meet quarterly. As of June 2023, OSHA and FSIS had not fully
implemented the 2022 MOU, but have taken steps to collaborate on
training projects. For example, FSIS officials attended and provided
feedback on an OSHA training on meat processing in November 2022.
In our previous work, we identified seven leading collaboration practices
that can help agencies implement, enhance, and sustain collaboration.89
For this report, we assessed whether OSHA and FSIS followed leading
collaboration practices to protect meat and poultry workers during the
pandemic. Of the seven leading collaboration practices, we found that
OSHA and FSIS generally followed one (Written Guidance and
Agreements) and partially followed a second (Clarifying Goals and
Responsibilities), but did not follow the remaining five (Outcomes and
Accountability, Bridging Organizational Cultures, Leadership, Participants,
and Resources) [See table 1].
Table 1: Assessment of Extent to Which OSHA and FSIS Followed Leading Collaboration Practices
Category Leading Practices Key Considerations Agency Actions
Leading Outcomes and Have the agencies clearly defined OSHA and FSIS have not defined outcomes or
Collaboration Accountability short-term and long-term developed a way to track and monitor progress on
Practices that outcomes? Is there a way to track collaborative efforts. The 2022 MOU does not include
Were Not and monitor progress towards short-term or long-term outcomes. OSHA and FSIS
Followed by OSHA these outcomes? officials said they will consider establishing and
and FSIS monitoring outcomes as they implement the 2022
MOU.
Leading Bridging What are the missions and Officials at both agencies identified differing missions
Collaboration Organizational organizational cultures of the as a challenge to collaboration. While the 2022 MOU
Practices that Cultures participating agencies? What are calls for sharing data and information, it does not
Were Not the commonalities in these identify ways for the agencies to bridge cultural
Followed by OSHA missions and cultures, and what differences.
and FSIS are some potential challenges?
Have the agencies developed ways
for operating across agency
boundaries?
89GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Page 50 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
Category Leading Practices Key Considerations Agency Actions
Leading Leadershipa How will leadership be sustained The 2022 MOU identifies two high-level officials who
Collaboration over the long term? are responsible for implementation. However, the
Practices that agreement does not specify how leadership will be
Were Not sustained through changes in administration or
Followed by OSHA turnover in these positions.
and FSIS
Leading Participantsb Have all relevant participants been We found that OSHA and FSIS officials in the field
Collaboration included? were generally unaware of and did not participate in
Practices that any collaboration activities during the pandemic. The
Were Not 2022 MOU does not identify participants at the
Followed by OSHA working level who have relevant experience.
and FSIS
Leading Resources How will the collaborative OSHA and FSIS officials did not identify resources
Collaboration mechanism be funded and staffed? dedicated for collaboration efforts on worker safety.
Practices that Have online collaboration tools The 2022 MOU also does not mention resources,
Were Not been developed? staffing, or developing online collaboration tools.
Followed by OSHA
and FSIS
Leading Clarify Roles and Have participating agencies OSHA and FSIS officials we interviewed did not
Collaboration Responsibilitiesc clarified the roles and identify specific roles and responsibilities related to
Practices that responsibilities of the participants? worker safety collaboration. The 2022 MOU specifies
Were Partially some responsibilities of each agency, such as FSIS
Followed by OSHA providing training to its staff and OSHA assisting with
and FSIS these efforts, but it does not provide sufficient
information to determine which individuals or groups
in each agency will implement the MOU.
Leading Written Guidance Have participating agencies In August 2022, OSHA and FSIS updated their MOU,
Collaboration and Agreements documented their agreement on including specifying how they will collaborate on
Practices that how they will collaborate? Have training and provisions to monitor implementation
Were Generally they developed ways to continually annually.
Followed by OSHA update or monitor their agreement?
and FSIS
Legend: ● Generally followed ◐ Partially followed ○ Not followed
Source: GAO analysis of leading collaboration practices, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 2022 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) on worker safety, and interviews with OSHA and FSIS officials. | GAO-23-105104
a
Sustained and committed leadership by those involved in the collaborative effort, at all levels of the
organization, helps overcome challenges to working across agency boundaries by centralizing
accountability and expediting decision-making, among other things.
b
We previously reported that it is helpful when participants in a collaborative mechanism attend all of
its activities and possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute to the group’s outcomes.
See GAO-12-1022.
c
Collaboration practices call for agencies to work together to define and agree on their respective
roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative effort will be led.
Note: We compared OSHA and FSIS actions to leading collaboration practices identified in GAO,
Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms,
GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
OSHA and FSIS officials have described longstanding challenges to
interagency collaboration, dating back to at least 2005, as we previously
Page 51 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
reported.90 FSIS officials we spoke with for this review identified the
following challenges to interagency collaboration:
· FSIS mission and authorities are to ensure food safety rather than
worker safety;
· inspection personnel do not have time to fully assess worker safety
issues;
· personnel may be reluctant to contact OSHA about plant hazards
because an inspection could result in an OSHA citation of FSIS;91 and
· FSIS field staff lack a means of regular communication with OSHA
field staff.
OSHA officials described these challenges to interagency collaboration:
· OSHA inspectors view FSIS as an employer that OSHA regulates,
rather than as a federal partner; and
· shortage of inspectors and increased workload limit the time available
to reach out to FSIS.
Of the five leading collaboration practices that OSHA and FSIS did not
follow, at least two provide examples of longstanding challenges to
collaboration we identified in prior work: first, Outcomes and
Accountability, and second, Bridging Organizational Cultures.92
Outcomes and Accountability. This leading collaboration practice has
several key features, including: defining and articulating a common
outcome; developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on
results; and reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts
through plans and reports.93 Although the 1994 MOU included outcomes
and accountability activities, such as FSIS tracking training of FSIS staff
to identify worker safety hazards, we found in 2017 that OSHA and FSIS
were not tracking this information.94 The 2022 MOU does not include
90We had similar findings in our 2017 and 2005 reports. See GAO-18-12 and GAO,
Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, while Improving,
Could be Further Strengthened, GAO-05-96 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2005).
91OSHA conducted 22 inspections of FSIS from February 2020 through June 2022.
92GAO-18-12.
93GAO-12-1022.
94GAO-18-12.
Page 52 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
outcome and accountability activities, such as routinely tracking outcomes
related to worker safety.95 The 2022 MOU also does not include a
process for FSIS to share with OSHA its findings from safety reviews of
plants by FSIS Occupational Safety and Health Specialists and safety
committees.
As we reported in 2014, establishing shared outcomes and goals that
resonate with and are agreed upon by all participants is essential to
achieving outcomes in interagency workgroups.96 In addition, according to
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management
should externally communicate the necessary quality information to
achieve the entity’s objectives.97 For example, government entities not
only report information to each other, but also to the general public. By
publicly communicating the outcomes of collaborative efforts, OSHA and
FSIS could receive additional information that could further protect
workers in meat and poultry plants. OSHA and FSIS officials said they
would consider establishing outcomes and accountability activities to
monitor collaboration, but as of June 2023, they had not provided specific
details or time frames, in part because the workgroup that will address
these issues is new.
Bridging Organizational Cultures. OSHA and FSIS have not identified
an approach to reconciling their differing missions to achieve the common
goal of protecting meat and poultry workers. Leading collaboration
practices state that positive working relationships between participants
can bridge organizational cultures by building trust and fostering
communication.98 In our 2012 report, collaboration experts we spoke with
stated that building relationships across organizations is vital when
responding to an emergency.99 However, the 2022 MOU does not
specifically incorporate relationship building or other leading collaboration
practices that will bridge organizational cultures.
95The 2022 MOU does call for OSHA and FSIS to collaborate on developing training for
FSIS inspectors to identify safety hazards.
96GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance
Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).
97GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).
98GAO-12-1022.
99GAO-12-1022.
Page 53 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
As noted above, OSHA and FSIS staff described conflicting missions as a
challenge to collaboration. For example, OSHA field-level officials we met
with said they did not contact FSIS inspectors to discuss conditions in
plants or confirm conditions reported by companies, although FSIS
officials were present in plants when OSHA inspectors conducted remote
inspections. The OSHA field-level officials we spoke with generally said
this was because FSIS is considered part of its regulated community,
rather than a partner for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry workers.
In our 2017 report, we also found that FSIS inspectors may be reluctant
to contact OSHA about concerns in the plant in part due to fear of being
inspected by OSHA.100 During this review, in August 2021, FSIS officials
issued a notice requiring meat and poultry workers to wear masks when
FSIS food safety inspectors were present in plants located in counties
with substantial or high community COVID-19 transmission rates.101 FSIS
did not consult with OSHA about this decision, although the 1994 MOU
was in place. FSIS’s actions to protect its workers also may have
protected plant workers.
OSHA and FSIS could have greater assurance that their collaborative
efforts are meeting their joint goal of protecting meat and poultry workers
and FSIS inspectors by following the six leading practices that the
agencies did not follow or partially followed—Outcomes and
Accountability, Bridging Organizational Cultures, Leadership, Participants,
Resources, and Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities. As of June 2023,
the agencies’ progress has been limited. Given the revised MOU and the
federal government’s pandemic operating status, the agencies have had
little time to address areas of cooperation described in the MOU, or to
document their progress implementing the MOU.
In our prior work, we stated that collaborative mechanisms such as
interagency workgroups can be used to develop policies, implement
programs, and share information.102 The interagency workgroup OSHA
and FSIS formed to implement the MOU has not laid out how it will
address leading collaboration practices. For example, by establishing
outcomes for collaboration and processes for tracking and monitoring
their activities, OSHA and FSIS officials could have more assurance that
they are protecting meat and poultry workers and FSIS food safety
100GAO-18-12.
101FSIS rescinded this requirement in March 2022.
102GAO-14-220 and GAO-12-1022.
Page 54 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
inspectors. In addition, the agencies could more easily identify areas that
may need more attention to enhance and sustain collaboration. Agency
officials said the workgroup will consider ways to best implement the
MOU, including addressing leading collaboration practices.
Conclusions
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of injuries and illnesses to meat
and poultry workers sharply increased. In contrast, rates of injuries and
illnesses to workers in the manufacturing sector as a whole—which
includes the meat and poultry industry—decreased slightly. Companies
implemented measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, but workers
reported that they continued to be exposed to COVID-19. Crowded plant
conditions and the nature of the work—which requires workers to stand
side-by-side with colleagues for hours—put workers at heightened risk.
OSHA saw a dramatic increase in COVID-related reports from employers,
workers, and others about meat and poultry plants, and increased its
meat and poultry plant inspections in response. CDC’s NIOSH also
provided technical assistance to dozens of plants. However, OSHA
struggled to adapt existing standards to the pandemic, and noted its own
challenges in ensuring safe and healthy workplaces, including for meat
and poultry workers. OSHA acknowledges that meat and poultry workers,
particularly in the face of the pandemic, face a unique set of safety and
health challenges, but has not yet considered which specific actions, if
any, could address these challenges, including considering the need for
an industry-specific standard. Given the continued threat of infectious
disease and other longstanding and persistent hazards—such as those
associated with musculoskeletal disorders—at meat and poultry plants,
OSHA could benefit from assessing available actions for better protecting
these essential workers.
For decades, OSHA and FSIS have not collaborated effectively to protect
workers in meat and poultry plants, and the pandemic highlighted these
agencies’ lack of coordination. OSHA and FSIS both agree that
coordination between the two agencies could be improved. However, we
have conducted multiple reviews of OSHA and FSIS’s implementation of
their 1994 MOU and now their 2022 MOU, and we have seen little
evidence of direct on-the-ground collaboration to help protect meat and
poultry workers. Further, our discussions with OSHA worker safety
inspectors and FSIS meat and poultry inspectors indicate little knowledge
of the need to collaborate on worker safety. Since FSIS personnel are
Page 55 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
already present in many plants, the federal government is missing an
opportunity to further protect the safety and health of both plant workers
and FSIS inspectors by leveraging existing resources.
The 2022 revisions to the MOU are an important step forward, because
they clarify that FSIS should report infectious disease outbreaks to OSHA
and establish annual evaluations of the agencies’ collaboration. In
addition, the creation of a workgroup to implement the 2022 MOU creates
a mechanism that could foster collaboration between the two agencies.
However, OSHA and FSIS need to take additional steps to enhance
collaboration. Specifically, when the agencies revised their agreement in
2022, they did not incorporate leading practices to enhance collaboration,
such as ways to bridge organizational cultures, sustain leadership,
include all relevant participants, identify and leverage resources, or clarify
roles and responsibilities. They also did not define collaboration outcomes
or goals, or processes for tracking and monitoring progress towards these
outcomes. By following these leading collaboration practices, OSHA and
FSIS would be in a better position to protect workers during regular
periods, as well as in times of emergency.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making three recommendations—two to DOL and one to USDA.
Specifically:
The Secretary of the Department of Labor should ensure that OSHA
assesses and reports on which actions—such as an industry-specific
standard—are needed to protect meat and poultry workers from the
numerous hazards they face, including the risk of infectious disease.
OSHA could decide to request assistance from CDC’s NIOSH in this
process. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should ensure that the
Food Safety and Inspection Service meets regularly with DOL’s OSHA
through their interagency workgroup to resolve longstanding collaboration
challenges and incorporate leading collaboration practices. In
incorporating these practices, the agencies should clearly define short-
and long-term outcomes, track and monitor progress towards these
outcomes, and publicly report collaborative outcomes. (Recommendation
2)
Page 56 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
The Secretary of the Department of Labor should ensure that OSHA
meets regularly with USDA’s FSIS through their interagency workgroup to
resolve longstanding collaboration challenges and incorporate leading
collaboration practices. In incorporating these practices, the agencies
should clearly define short- and long-term outcomes, track and monitor
progress towards these outcomes, and publicly report collaborative
outcomes. (Recommendation 3)
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to DOL, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and USDA for their review and comment. DOL
declined to provide comments on the draft report, and stated that in
response to the two recommendations directed to DOL, it will provide a
Statement of Executive Action once the final report is issued. HHS stated
it had no comments on the draft report. USDA provided comments, which
are reproduced in Appendix V.
USDA commented that FSIS is committed to partnering with OSHA and
to doing a better job collaborating to resolve challenges. FSIS agreed with
our recommendation to meet regularly with OSHA through the
interagency workgroup to resolve longstanding collaboration challenges
and incorporate leading collaboration practices. Specifically, FSIS stated
that it is committed to clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes,
tracking and monitoring progress, and publicly reporting collaborative
outcomes related to meat and poultry worker safety. We are pleased that
FSIS plans to take these steps to resolve longstanding collaboration
challenges and to incorporate leading collaboration practices. As FSIS
and OSHA develop additional outcomes through their workgroup, we
encourage them to clearly link these outcomes to the leading
collaboration practices and to the challenges we identified in this report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report is available at no charge on the GAO website at
https://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
Thomas Costa at (202) 512-4769 or costat@gao.gov; or Steve Morris at
(202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
Page 57 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Thomas M. Costa, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Steve D. Morris, Director
Natural Resources and Environment
Page 58 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
List of Addressees
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Susan Collins
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
The Honorable Bernard Sanders
Chairman
The Honorable Bill Cassidy
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rand Paul, M.D.
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Kay Granger
Chairwoman
The Honorable Rosa DeLauro
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Virginia Foxx
Chairwoman
The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Ranking Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives
Page 59 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Chair
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Mark E. Green, M.D.
Chairman
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable James Comer
Chairman
The Honorable Jamie Raskin
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
House of Representatives
The Honorable Jason Smith
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Neal
Ranking Member
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barrag?n
House of Representatives
The Honorable Tony C?rdenas
House of Representatives
The Honorable Joaquin Castro
House of Representatives
The Honorable J. Luis Correa
House of Representatives
The Honorable Veronica Escobar
House of Representatives
Page 60 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Letter
The Honorable Adriano Espaillat
House of Representatives
The Honorable Ruben Gallego
House of Representatives
The Honorable Jes?s G. “Chuy” Garc?a
House of Representatives
The Honorable Sylvia R. Garcia
House of Representatives
The Honorable Jimmy Gomez
House of Representatives
The Honorable Ra?l M. Grijalva
House of Representatives
The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano
House of Representatives
The Honorable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
House of Representatives
The Honorable Raul Ruiz, M.D.
House of Representatives
The Honorable Linda T. S?nchez
House of Representatives
The Honorable Juan Vargas
House of Representatives
The Honorable Nydia M. Vel?zquez
House of Representatives
Page 61 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope,
and Methodology
This report examines (1) how meat and poultry companies responded to
the COVID-19 pandemic and how the pandemic affected meat and
poultry workers; (2) enforcement actions the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) took to ensure meat and poultry worker
safety and health during the pandemic and challenges associated with
enforcement; and (3) OSHA and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service’s (FSIS) collaboration on worker safety at meat and poultry plants
during the pandemic.
To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws,
regulations, agency documentation, and related GAO reports, and we
interviewed officials from OSHA, FSIS, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).1 We also interviewed and reviewed
information from additional stakeholders, including worker safety experts
and representatives of companies and worker advocacy groups.
Analysis of Data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics
The estimated total workers for the animal slaughtering and processing
industry in this report is an annual average calculated from household
data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS) by the U.S.
Census Bureau in 2021. The CPS is a probability sample, and estimates
1See GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Additional Data Needed to Address Continued
Hazards in the Meat and Poultry Industry, GAO-16-337 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2016);
GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: Better Outreach, Collaboration, and Information
Needed to Help Protect Workers at Meat and Poultry Plants, GAO-18-12 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 9, 2017); GAO, COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely
and Concerted Actions, GAO-20-701 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2020); GAO, COVID-
19: Urgent Actions Needed to Better Ensure an Effective Federal Response, GAO-21-191
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2020); GAO: COVID-19: Critical Vaccine Distribution, Supply
Chain, Program Integrity, and Other Challenges Require Focused Federal Attention,
GAO-21-265 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2021); GAO, COVID-19: Additional Actions
Needed to Improve Accountability and Program Effectiveness of Federal Response,
GAO-22-105051 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2021); and GAO, Workplace Safety and
Health: Data and Enforcement Challenges Limit OSHA’s Ability to Protect Workers during
a Crisis, GAO-22-105711 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2022).
Page 62 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
derived from its data have sampling errors associated with them. We
followed the Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
technical guidance for estimating the standard error of annual average
totals from CPS data. We express the precision of our estimate as a 95
percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the
actual population value for 95 percent of the CPS samples that the U.S.
Census Bureau could have drawn.
To describe injury and illness rates in the meat and poultry industry and
manufacturing, we analyzed and reported survey data from the BLS
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) for calendar years
2014 through 2021, the most recent year for which data were available.2
The SOII provides estimates of the number and frequency (incidence
rates) of workplace injuries and illnesses by industry and also by detailed
case circumstances, based on data from logs kept by employers (survey
respondents)—private industry and state and local governments. Survey
respondents provide counts for all reportable injuries and illnesses under
OSHA recordkeeping regulations.
To report SOII data from the meat and poultry industry (using North
American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 31161 for the
Animal Slaughtering and Processing Industry) and for manufacturing
using NAICS code 31-33, BLS provided estimates of each industry’s
injury and illness rates and their associated relative standard errors. We
express the precision of these results as a 95 percent confidence interval.
This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95
percent of the samples the respective agency could have drawn. For
estimates derived from BLS’s SOII data, we used the agency-provided
relative standard errors to estimate the associated confidence intervals.
To assess the reliability of BLS’s SOII data, we reviewed documents
related to the data sources, such as BLS’s Handbook of Methods, and we
corresponded with agency officials knowledgeable about this dataset. We
found that SOII data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes in
summarizing reported cases and incidence rates of injuries and illnesses
in the meat and poultry industry.
2We reported estimated incidence rates for total recordable cases of injuries and illnesses
per 100 full-time workers for calendar years 2014 through 2021.
Page 63 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Survey of Meat and Poultry Companies
To understand the range of steps that companies took to protect meat
and poultry workers, we conducted a survey of meat and poultry
companies that were members of three U.S. meat and poultry industry
groups: the National Chicken Council, the National Turkey Federation,
and the North American Meat Institute. These industry groups represent
“general” members (those who slaughter and process), supplier members
(who provide goods and services to the general members), and allied
members (companies that are involved in the industry but that do not fall
into either category above). An official from one of the industry groups
told us that of the roughly 6,000 federally inspected plants, members of
his group operate about 700-800 of them.
The survey asked companies to respond to several questions regarding
measures they took during the COVID-19 pandemic, their collaboration
with state and federal health and safety officials, and any challenges to
and lessons learned from operating during the pandemic. We pretested
the draft survey with one large meat and poultry company over the phone.
We selected the meat and poultry company based on company size and
prior participation in GAO engagements on meat and poultry industry
practices. We sought feedback on whether (1) the questions were clear
and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) information on
the questionnaire could feasibly be obtained, (4) the questionnaire did not
place an undue burden on officials, and (5) questions were
comprehensive and unbiased. We also received feedback on the draft
survey from a peer reviewer. We made changes to the content and format
of the questionnaire after the pretest and review.
Industry group representatives distributed our survey by email to 391
meat and poultry companies. The email contained the survey in Microsoft
Word document form. We requested that each company or their
representative send completed surveys to a GAO analyst once the survey
was completed. We sent follow-up email messages to the industry
organizations on January 5, 12, and 18, 2022, asking them to remind their
members to respond to our survey by requesting feedback by January 25,
2022, the last date when companies could respond to the survey.
Fifteen of the 391 companies responded, representing a 4 percent
response rate. Ten companies reported having the smallest number of
plants (10 or fewer), and six of these reported having 1,000 or fewer
employees. One company reported having 11-20 plants and between
Page 64 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
5,001 and 10,000 employees. Four companies indicated that they were in
the largest category in terms of workers employed (more than 10,000)
and numbers of plants. These four are among the largest meat
processing companies, each reporting more than 31 plants with one
employing over 137,000 workers. Given the low response rate, we
consider the findings non-generalizable to meat and poultry companies
overall.
Early in our review, we also conducted an informal site visit to one large
poultry plant to observe any protective measures that may have been
implemented and to obtain first-hand knowledge of the effects of COVID-
19 on all aspects of the plant’s operations. During our site visit, we
conducted worker interviews with two groups of workers—one group of
three workers identified by plant management and another group of four
workers, identified by the plant’s union. We also participated in a plant
walk-through of areas on the production line and worker common areas,
and conducted interviews with plant management, a corporate
representative, FSIS staff, and a union representative.
Interviews with Workers
To understand how meat and poultry workers were affected by the
pandemic, we conducted individual and group interviews with 24 meat
and poultry workers from 13 companies in nine states. To identify
workers, we worked with 11 advocacy groups, selected based on a
variety of factors, such as geographic diversity, states with a relatively
high level of meat or poultry slaughter (based on USDA data), and type of
plant (meat or poultry).3 Advocacy group representatives selected
workers based on experience in the industry and availability. We
conducted six individual interviews over Zoom or by telephone, and four
group interviews with from three to six workers over Zoom rather than in
person because of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that at least one
Spanish-speaking GAO staff member was present at each interview to
interpret. The information gathered from these interviews is not
generalizable to all plants, nor to all meat or poultry workers.
3Advocacy groups we spoke with included groups that advocate specifically for meat and
poultry workers, as well as others that study and report on broader issues of worker health
and safety. We also spoke with faith-based groups, community organizations, and groups
that advocate on behalf of immigrants and non-English speakers.
Page 65 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Literature Search
Through literature searches, we identified studies from public health
journals or other major sources on various topics pertinent to our review,
such as reviews of the efficacy of physical distancing, barriers,
temperature checks, and masking. For the selected literature, we
reviewed references and used a snowball approach to identify further
relevant studies. We also reviewed reports from pertinent federal
agencies, such as DOL and USDA inspector general reports, CDC plant
walk-through reports, etc.
OSHA Inspection Documentation and Data
To examine enforcement actions that OSHA took to help ensure meat
and poultry worker safety and health during the pandemic as well as
challenges associated with enforcement, we reviewed documentation,
such as agency guidance and information about enforcement activities,
and interviewed officials at OSHA area offices. We reviewed OSHA
documents for a non-generalizable sample of 12 COVID-related meat and
poultry inspections, selected to include a variety of geographic locations,
different types of plants (meat or poultry), different times during the
pandemic, both remote and in-person inspections, and various outcomes.
We interviewed OSHA staff from seven area offices and two regional
offices with a high meat and poultry industry presence based on FSIS
data, and high OSHA enforcement activity in meat and poultry based on
OSHA data.
We also analyzed enforcement data from February 2018 through June
2022 from the OSHA Information System database. We analyzed
enforcement data on federal inspections of meat and poultry plants,
including data on the type of inspection, violations found, standards cited,
and penalties assessed. To analyze the number of inspections and
results of OSHA inspections of meat and poultry plants, we analyzed
inspections of plants with NAICS codes 311611, 311612, and 311613 for
meat plants and 311615 for poultry plants. We also analyzed the number
of inspections and results of OSHA inspections of manufacturing facilities
using NAICS codes 31-33. To assess the reliability of these data, we
reviewed relevant agency documentation, conducted electronic data
testing, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about these data.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
Page 66 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
OSHA and FSIS Collaboration
To examine how OSHA and FSIS have collaborated to help ensure meat
and poultry worker safety and health during the pandemic, we reviewed
our past reports on interagency collaboration and related
recommendations on OSHA and FSIS collaboration. We obtained agency
documents relevant to collaborative efforts, conducted interviews with
agency officials, and sent written semi-structured questions to each
agency regarding their collaboration efforts. Specifically, we reviewed the
1994 memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to by OSHA and
FSIS for protecting workers, which was in effect at the start of the
pandemic in 2020 and until the agencies revised the MOU in August
2022.4 We interviewed OSHA and FSIS officials at headquarters, and at
the regional and field levels, including FSIS inspectors. We sent a semi-
structured questionnaire to each agency asking questions about the
extent of collaboration based on leading collaboration practices.
We compared agencies’ MOUs, actions in response to our previous
recommendations, collaborative actions on worker safety taken during the
pandemic, and responses to our questionnaire against leading
collaboration practices—establishing outcomes and accountability,
bridging organizational cultures, sustaining leadership, including relevant
participants, identifying resources, clarifying roles and responsibilities,
and having written guidance and agreements—identified by GAO in these
prior reports.5 Each of these practices contains key considerations, and
we assessed whether agencies’ actions and documentation followed
leading collaboration practices including key considerations. Based on
our assessment, we determined the extent to which OSHA and FSIS
generally followed, partially followed, or did not follow each leading
collaboration practice.
4Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, February 4,
1994; Memorandum of Understanding between DOL’s OSHA and USDA’s FSIS, August
1, 2022.
5See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); and GAO,
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Page 67 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
Appendix II: Additional
Information from Company
Surveys and Worker Interviews
We conducted a survey of meat and poultry companies to get information
about the measures they implemented to respond to the pandemic and
how workers were affected. Of the 391 surveys distributed to companies,
we received 15 non-generalizable responses, including responses from 4
of the largest meat processing companies, employing approximately
262,000 workers. Below is a selection of their responses. The total
number of respondents is provided for each response to clarify how many
organizations provided information on a specific measure.
To understand how meat and poultry workers were affected by the
pandemic, we conducted individual and group interviews with 24 meat
and poultry workers from 13 companies in nine states.1 We spoke with
advocacy groups to identify these workers, and selected these groups
based on a variety of factors, such as those located in states with a
relatively high level of meat or poultry slaughter (based on USDA data).
The information gathered from these interviews is not generalizable to all
plants or all meat or poultry workers, but provides illustrative examples of
the challenges meat and poultry workers faced during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Additional Information from Companies regarding
Physical Distancing
In our survey, thirteen companies cited challenges associated with
physical distancing on the production line. Commonly reported challenges
included (1) space and process constraints that did not allow for
distancing on production lines, (2) workstations that companies could not
reconfigure while maintaining production, and (3) plant space that was
limited and workstations that were designed to maximize efficiency and
1We conducted an additional interview with seven meat and poultry workers during our
visit to a poultry plant. This interview differed in content and structure from subsequent
worker interviews and is not included in our discussion.
Page 68 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
ensure consumer demand was met.2 For example, one company
commented that, “Our manufacturing facilities have been designed and
engineered over years to account for maximum worker production, safety,
and efficiency within limited physical space…mandating six-foot spacing
on all positions would create operational bottlenecks crippling the overall
production capability of a plant, which in turn has significant impacts on
the upstream and downstream supply chains.”
Statements from CDC and some meat and poultry workers support the
assessment by some companies that certain processing tasks require
workers to be in close proximity to one another. For example, CDC said
that during their plant visits and discussions with plant management, they
were provided with examples of tasks that do not allow for physical
distancing, such as lifting large carcasses onto the line, which requires
two people.
Additional Information from Workers regarding Physical
Distancing
As stated earlier, the 24 workers we interviewed had varying views on the
steps companies took to ensure their safety through physical distancing.
These workers described plants’ efforts at physical distancing on the
production line and in other parts of the plant.
For example:
· Nineteen workers at ten companies said physical distancing was
difficult to enforce or not enforced because there were too many
workers on the production line. One worker said physical distancing
was practically impossible due to cramped facilities as well as the
nature of the work, which required workers to move around the plant.
Another worker said workers at their plant were packed together “like
sardines,” with workers standing shoulder to shoulder. Another said
that although the company made renovations to make more space on
the line, it was still not enough to maintain the recommended physical
distancing.
2Companies were asked to indicate the challenges they faced in physically distancing
workers on production lines, with workers spaced at least six feet apart. We identified
these themes in 13 of the 15 company responses.
Page 69 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
· Ten workers at four companies said plant management said nothing
about the need for distancing or did not implement any form of
physical distancing.
· All workers we spoke with reported crowding in their plants’ common
areas, such as the restroom and cafeterias.
OXFAM America reported similar findings in 2020, from interviews with
more than 40 poultry workers who said they had no ability to maintain a
reasonable distance from their coworkers.3
Additional Information on Masking, Temperature Checks,
Sick Leave, and Other Company Measures
Masking. Workers reported rules on masking changed throughout the
pandemic. For example, nine workers at three companies said that mask
wearing originally was optional at their plants, but the plants later required
it after many workers contracted COVID-19. A worker at one plant that
required mask wearing said that not all workers complied with the
requirement, and that some workers would pull their mask down below
their nose or take their mask off to speak. In our interviews from April
through June 2022, we asked all 24 workers whether mask use was still
required at their plants, and all but one worker said it was either optional
or no longer required.
Researchers who published an article in the Journal of Environmental
Health conducted an online survey of 585 meatpacking workers in the
Midwest to gather their concerns and perceptions of COVID-19 in May
2020. The authors identified common themes among worker responses
related to what they wanted companies to do to reduce COVID-19
transmission in the plant.4 Forty-nine workers commented that companies
should provide new masks every day or whenever an employee needs a
new one, because masks may get wet and make it difficult to work. They
also said that employers should require that all employees use masks
correctly, such as by fully covering their nose and mouth. A worker
advocacy group also reported that companies’ initial response to the
pandemic was dependent on CDC guidance, but that guidance did not
3OXFAM America, “Disposable – In the Face of COVID-19, the Poultry Industry Seems
Willing to Pay for Cheap Chicken with Workers’ Lives,” August 2020.
4Athena K. Ramos, et al. “A Rapid-Response Survey of Essential Workers in Midwestern
Meatpacking Plants: Perspectives on COVID-19 Response in the Workplace,” Journal of
Environmental Health, July/August 2021, 84(1), 16-25.
Page 70 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
initially recommend masking, and there was some difficulty obtaining
masks during the early phases of the pandemic. They said that confusion
about how to respond to evolving guidance most likely caused more
illness.
Temperature checks. As mentioned earlier, workers we interviewed
reported that COVID-19 screening measures at their plants, such as
temperature checks, were not very effective and the plants enforced
these measures inconsistently. For example:
· Four workers from two companies said that employees with fevers
were sent home, but eight other workers from four companies said
that those with fevers were allowed or expected by plant management
to stay at work.
· One worker said her plant did not check temperatures consistently
each time workers entered the plant.
Sick leave. As stated earlier, in March 2020, the United Food and
Commercial Workers union reported securing bonuses, extra weekly pay,
and up to 2 weeks of paid leave for COVID-related absences for their
members from meat and poultry companies. In addition, all 15 companies
responding to our survey reported changing their sick leave policies to
accommodate workers, with several providing various incentives. For
example:
· One company reported allowing all employees 60 years or older or
with high-risk medical conditions to stay home with full pay for several
months.
· At least three companies reported providing 2 weeks of paid leave for
COVID-related absences.
· Some companies reported providing bonuses in the first few months
of 2020 and increasing worker pay early in the pandemic, in an effort
to attract and retain workers. Specifically, at least four companies
reported providing bonuses to workers and two companies reported
increasing worker pay by $2 an hour.
Our discussions with worker advocates also addressed plant sick leave
policies. One issue that came up included how sick leave policies at
certain plants were unclear at the start of the pandemic. For example,
according to one advocate, workers at these plants did not receive any
formal guidance, such as information on what would happen if they
stayed home while sick. As a result, they had to learn from the
Page 71 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
experiences of their coworkers. Another advocate said Spanish-speaking
workers at one plant received information on COVID-19 in English only.
Vaccine and attendance incentives. All but one company reported
offering workers the COVID-19 vaccine in plants. Three of those
companies reported requiring its employees to become vaccinated as a
condition of employment. Four companies reported offering incentives to
be vaccinated, such as paying a $100 bonus, holding a raffle, or providing
paid time off to get vaccinated. In contrast, an official at one company
said that the company did not want to force its existing employees to be
vaccinated.
A worker at one plant said staff received financial bonuses for not missing
work. According to the worker, bonuses at this plant were $650 and were
awarded three times—in December 2020, July 2021, and December
2021. Another worker said that the incentive program at her plant
awarded workers $2 more per hour if they did not punch in late. One
worker said that her employer offered a $500 bonus at the end of every
week if workers showed up every day that week. She said the purpose of
the bonuses was to get workers to show up to work, whether or not they
were sick.
One worker, who had worked at two plants that used a point system—a
policy where employees are given a point or multiple points for
unapproved absences that may result in termination after the accrual of a
defined number of points—said there was no policy until later in the
pandemic about what would happen to workers’ points if they tested
positive for COVID-19. This worker said the companies fired many of her
coworkers who contracted COVID-19. Two other workers said that early
in the pandemic, their company required all workers to work 7 days a
week for one complete month. These workers said that if staff missed
work during that time, the company imposed two points per day missed.
Company communication with workers. As stated previously, some
workers said that plant management did not share information with them
about COVID-19 risks and safety protocols, nor were they notified when
coworkers became ill with the virus. One worker said her plant
management asked some workers who may have been exposed to
COVID-19 to be tested, but did not notify other workers even though they
also may have been exposed. She added that workers at this plant
concluded that their coworkers had COVID-19 when they failed to show
up for their shifts. Another worker said his plant did not share any
information about COVID-19, and even after his coworkers became sick,
Page 72 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix II: Additional Information from
Company Surveys and Worker Interviews
many continued to work because of the lack of information on COVID-19
and how it is transmitted.
Similarly, a 2020 OXFAM America report noted that among more than 40
workers who were interviewed, all indicated that materials related to
COVID-19 policies and protocols were provided only in English. The
report also cited cases in which plants did not communicate information
about illness and fatality incidents to workers.5
5OXFAM America, “Disposable,” 1-5.
Page 73 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix III: COVID-Related Violations Cited
by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for Meat and Poultry
Employers
Appendix III: COVIDRelated
Violations Cited by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for Meat
and Poultry Employers
From February 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022, OSHA cited 11 COVID-
related violations of OSHA standards and 4 COVID-related general duty
clause violations (see table 2).
Table 2: COVID-Related Violations Cited for Meat and Poultry Employers, February 1, 2020–June 30, 2022
Standard Number of violations (plant type) Penaltiesh
Recording fatalities, injuries, and illnesses (29 4 other-than-serious violations (meat) $29,206
C.F.R. § 1904.4)a
Using OSHA recordkeeping forms (29 C.F.R. § 2 other–than-serious violations (meat) $14,000
1904.29)b
Reporting injuries and illnesses – employee 1 other-than-serious violation (meat) $2,121
involvement (29 C.F.R. § 1904.35)c
Reporting fatalities, hospitalizations, 1 other-than-serious violation (poultry) $0
amputations, and losses of an eye to OSHA (29
C.F.R. § 1904.39)d
Personal Protective Equipment – General 1 serious (poultry) and 1 other-than-serious $6,360
Requirements (29 C.F.R. § 1910.132)e (meat) violation
Personal Protective Equipment -- Respiratory 1 other-than-serious violation (meat) $0
Protection (29 C.F.R. § 1910.134)f
General duty clause (29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1))g 4 serious violations (meat) $53,976
Source: GAO analysis of data from the OSHA Information System. | GAO-23-105104
Note: A serious violation exists when there is a substantial probability that the workplace hazard could
most likely result in death or serious physical harm, unless the employer did not know or could not,
with reasonable diligence, have known of the violation.
a
29 C.F.R. § 1904.4 generally requires employers to keep an internal record of all work-related
fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.
b
29 C.F.R. § 1904.29 generally requires employers to use OSHA forms, or their equivalent, to record
occupational injuries and illnesses.
c
29 C.F.R. § 1904.35 generally requires employers to inform their employees how to report work-
related injuries and illnesses to the employer.
Page 74 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix III: COVID-Related Violations Cited
by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for Meat and Poultry
Employers
d
29 C.F.R. § 1904.39 generally requires employers to report to OSHA all work-related in-patient
hospitalizations, amputations, and losses of an eye within 24 hours and all work-related fatalities
within 8 hours.
e
29 C.F.R. § 1910.132-140 generally requires employers to provide personal protective equipment to
employees when necessary, such as for eyes, face, and head.
f
29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 generally requires employers to provide respiratory protection to employees
when necessary to protect employee health.
g
The general duty clause requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards
that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to their employees. The general duty clause is
part of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, and is distinct from standards,
which OSHA promulgates under the OSH Act. The general duty clause is used for enforcement when
no standard applies to a particular hazard. See 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). All of the four general duty
clause citations issued for meat plants were contested by the employers. One of them was changed
from a general duty clause violation to a different, other-than-serious violation as part of the
settlement – violation of the personal protective equipment standard, and the other three were
withdrawn. In this table, we count all of these cases as general duty clause violations.
h
OSHA assesses financial penalties for violations based on various factors outlined in statute and
OSHA policy. For example, after January 15, 2023, violations determined to be serious are subject to
penalties of up to $15,625 per violation, and violations determined to be willful or repeated are subject
to penalties of up to $156,259 per violation. See 88 Fed. Reg. 2,210, 2,217-18 (Jan. 13, 2023) (to be
codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1903.15(d)). Some of these cases may still be open and may have been
contested or appealed by the employers, which could have ultimately resulted in changes to the
violations cited or penalties issued. In addition, under the OSH Act, OSHA has 6 months from the
occurrence of a violation to issue a citation and any related penalties, so totals for the number of
violations cited and penalties issued from February 2020 through June 2022 may not reflect the total
that will eventually be cited or issued related to inspections initiated during those months. These data
are current as of June 30, 2022.
Page 75 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix IV: Status of GAO Recommendations
to the Department of Labor (DOL) Related to
Protection of Meat and Poultry Workers
Appendix IV: Status of GAO
Recommendations to the
Department of Labor (DOL)
Related to Protection of Meat and
Poultry Workers
Since 2016, we have made six recommendations to DOL regarding the
safety of meat and poultry workers and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration’s (OSHA) collaboration with the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS), five of which remain unimplemented (see table
3).
Table 3: Status of GAO Recommendations to the Department of Labor (DOL) Related to Protection of Meat and Poultry
Workers
GAO report Recommendation Status of recommendation
GAO-16-337 (issued April 25, To strengthen DOL’s efforts to ensure employers protect the safety Open
2016) and health of workers at meat and poultry plants, the Secretary of
Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety
and Health, working together with the Commissioner of Labor
Statistics as appropriate, to develop and implement a cost-effective
method for gathering more complete data on musculoskeletal
disorders.
GAO-16-337 (issued April 25, To develop a better understanding of meat and poultry sanitation Open
2016) workers’ injuries and illnesses, the Secretary of Labor should direct
the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health and the
Commissioner of Labor Statistics to study how they could regularly
gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in
the meat and poultry industry.
GAO-18-12 (issued November The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Open
9, 2017) should take additional steps to encourage workers to disclose
sensitive concerns during OSHA inspections of meat and poultry
plants; for example, by considering additional off-site interviews or
exploring other options to obtain information anonymously.
GAO-18-12 (issued November The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Open
9, 2017) should gather more information, such as by asking workers during
meat and poultry plant inspections, to determine the extent to which
bathroom access is a problem and how to address any identified
issues.
Page 76 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix IV: Status of GAO Recommendations
to the Department of Labor (DOL) Related to
Protection of Meat and Poultry Workers
GAO report Recommendation Status of recommendation
GAO-18-12 (issued November The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Open
9, 2017) should update its guidance for employers on how to manage their
health units to address the challenges of managing these units.
GAO-18-12 (issued November The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Closed as implemented
9, 2017) should work with FSIS to assess the implementation of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and make any needed
changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set specific time
frames for periodic evaluations of the MOU.
Source: GAO | GAO-23-105104
Page 77 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Agriculture
Appendix V: Comments from the
Department of Agriculture
Page 78 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Agriculture
Page 79 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Agriculture
Page 80 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Accessible Text for Appendix V: Comments
from the Department of Agriculture
Accessible Text for Appendix V:
Comments from the Department of
Agriculture
May 31, 2023
Mr. Thomas Costa
Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
United States Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20226
Mr. Steve Morris Director
Natural Resources and Environment
United States Government Accountability Office
441G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. Costa and Mr. Morris,
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appreciates the opportunity to review the
U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) draft report entitled Meat and Poultry
Worker Safety: OSHA Should Determine How to Address Persistent Hazards
Exacerbated by COVID-19 (GAO-23-105104). We have provided a few general
comments on the draft report and outlined planned corrective actions for the
recommendation directed at USDA.
General Comments:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Department of Labor’s
(DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) share the goal of
protecting the safety and health of workers in FSIS-regulated establishments,
including both FSIS and establishment employees. On August 1, 2022, FSIS and
OSHA finalized an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to
facilitate that goal in a number of ways, including by delineating the Agencies’
respective authorities, roles and responsibilities; by providing for areas of
cooperation and the exchange of data and information; and through the cooperation
of OSHA and FSIS when either agency is developing standards and regulations that
could affect the workers at these facilities.
Page 81 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Accessible Text for Appendix V: Comments
from the Department of Agriculture
The FSIS is committed to partnering with OSHA going forward and doing a better job
of collaborating to resolve challenges and incorporate leading collaboration
practices. FSIS and OSHA have established an interagency workgroup that meets
quarterly. The inaugural meeting was held on December 9, 2022, and a subsequent
meeting was held on March 21, 2023, which enabled us to strengthen
communication, collaboration, and trust. Collaboratively, FSIS and OSHA have
defined short- and long-term outcomes and plan to track and monitor progress.
Having clearly defined unified outcomes further strengthens the partnership between
the two agencies.
USDA Responses to GAO Recommendations for Executive Action
GAO Recommendation #2: The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture should
ensure that FSIS meets regularly with DOL’s OSHA through their interagency
workgroup to resolve longstanding collaboration challenges and incorporate leading
collaboration practices. In incorporating these practices, the agencies should clearly
define short- and long- term outcomes, track and monitor progress towards these
outcomes, and publicly report collaborative outcomes.
USDA Response:
FSIS agrees with this recommendation and is committed to clearly defining short-
and long-term outcomes, tracking and monitoring progress, and publicly reporting
collaborative outcomes related to meat and poultry worker safety.
FSIS will work with OSHA to achieve two short- term outcomes: 1) determine an
appropriate number of interagency meetings per year and set the agenda for future
meetings; and 2) identify ways in which both agencies will raise employee
awareness of the provisions of the updated MOU that apply to them.
To enhance workplace safety through training of FSIS employees, consistent with
the Agency’s roles and responsibilities for training as outlined in the MOU, FSIS will
work to implement three short-term outcomes: 1) set a completion date for
development of FSIS training on workplace hazard identification and response; 2)
track the number of in-plant employees who completed training within 120 days of its
launch: and 3) use surveys to identify knowledge gained through training.
And lastly, to ensure safe and healthful workplace conditions and long-term
accountability, FSIS will review FSIS worker safety data on an annual basis, monitor
changes, and potentially identify ways to enhance FSIS worker safety.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report.
Sincerely,
Page 82 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Accessible Text for Appendix V: Comments
from the Department of Agriculture
Emilio Esteban
Under Secretary for Food Safety
Page 83 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and
Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Thomas Costa, (202) 512-4769 or costat@gao.gov
Steve Morris, (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contacts named above, Blake Ainsworth (Assistant
Director), Nkenge Gibson (Assistant Director), Eve Weisberg (Analyst-in-
Charge), David Bennett, Breanne Cave, Monika Gomez, Rosemary
Torres Lerma, Ying Long, Chris Morehouse, Aaron Olszewski, Ebony
Russ, Meg Sommerfeld, Almeta Spencer, Curtia Taylor, and Kathleen
van Gelder made significant contributions to this report.
Also contributing to this report were Lucas Alvarez, Silvia Arbelaez-Ellis,
Josephine Ballenger, David Barish, Linda Collins, Denise Cook, Hayden
Huang, Celia Mendive, John Mingus, Josephine Perez, Eric Peterson,
Gloria Proa, Tracie Sanchez, Ronni Schwartz, Sarah Veale, Erin Villas,
Amber Yancey-Carroll, and Timothy Young.
Page 84 GAO-23-105104 Meat and Poultry Worker Safety
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548
File and source
- File
- gao-23-105104.pdf
- Size
- 4,595,677 bytes
- SHA-256
- a7c00e1475482206b17f639ea934817f415bf94aa2cb4fa1b46fb0d29f7c642d
- Our copy
- gao-23-105104.pdf
- Original
- www.gao.gov