According to the latest National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA), 100% of U.S. processing plants now report challenges with foreign materials, specifically BBs and metal shot embedded deep in muscle tissue. This hidden threat causes a 1% loss in total ground beef production annually, effectively robbing 89% of American consumers of one serving of beef per year.
Jessica Lancaster, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) senior director of product quality and safety research, warns because these materials are classified as regulatory adulterants, a single BB can lead to the condemnation of thousands of pounds of beef.
“That’s really challenging, because that’s not something we see on the surface of a carcass,” Lancaster explains. “Often that’s getting embedded deep into the muscle and sometimes even to the bone.”
She summarizes the issue is both widespread and expensive — and it starts long before cattle reach the packing plant. It’s present across the country, in both the fed beef supply and the cull cow and bull plants.
BBs aren’t the only problem. Lancaster has received documentation of numerous incidences when remote drug delivery devices (darts) were lodged in places like lungs and deep muscles. Critically, these issues originate in the pre-harvest segment — the production side that producers can control — but often aren’t discovered until post-harvest, during further processing.
What Happens When a BB is Found in Ground Beef?
The consequences reach far beyond a single affected carcass. When trimmings from multiple animals are combined into combos for ground beef, foreign materials often go unnoticed until it’s too late.
“The challenge is we don’t find that product until it hits the grinder blade,” Lancaster says. “And at that point there is thousands of pounds that are then impacted, and there’s no way to know if there was one BB or 40 BBs in that load.”
Because there is no practical way to isolate only the contaminated portion, entire lots must be condemned. That means even producers who have done everything right can see products from their cattle included in a load that ends up discarded because of a few bad producers somewhere upstream.
“It’s not only the cattle who are contaminated with the foreign material that are impacted,” Lancaster stresses, “All of our producers who are doing the right thing also are facing loss of product because of the bad actors.”
How Much Money Does the Beef Industry Lose to Foreign Materials?
The economic impact is substantial. Lancaster’s team estimates that about 1% of ground beef is lost due to foreign material contamination. On the consumer side, that translates into over 89% of U.S. consumers getting one less serving of beef per year. In a market environment where beef demand is tight and every pound matters, those lost servings add up quickly.
“Product from one animal could tank product from eight animals,” Lancaster explains. “When we’re making a batch of that, we’re impacting 51 head of cattle. And every time an event happens, it costs the industry $75,000, and in most facilities, we’re seeing 140 events of this per year at each facility.”
Add that up across the industry and the bill comes to roughly $476 million annually.
Is Foreign Material in Beef a New Issue?
Beyond the economic cost, foreign materials in beef are a regulatory and food safety concern.
While finding foreign materials in beef is not a new challenge — it was first noted in the early ’90s — changing regulations have redefined foreign objects to be adulterants regardless of physical characteristics.
“Foreign material is an adulterant today,” Lancaster emphasizes. “Anytime we see that, there’s regulatory action that takes place. Any objects that are not inherent to the animal are considered foreign material and we should never have foreign material in our animals as they’re entering the processing facility.”
In other words, if BBs or other foreign objects are present, the product is no longer acceptable for the food supply.
Is Foreign Material in Beef an Animal Welfare Issue?
There is also an animal welfare dimension. For a BB or metal shot to end up lodged deep within tissue, it must be propelled there with significant force. Lancaster points out this is not just a product quality issue — it raises serious questions about how and why animals are being exposed to these projectiles in the first place.
What is the Industry Doing About It?
While all modern plants use metal detectors and other detection systems, they have physical and technological limits.
“If we think about these BBs, they’re so small,” Lancaster summarizes.
Just as airport detectors can miss very small items, plant systems may not reliably catch tiny shot deeply embedded in muscle or near bone.
Lancaster says she sees a two-pronged path forward: education and technology.
First, there’s a clear need for producer education. Many in the production segment still believe foreign objects are primarily a plant problem. Lancaster’s data tells a different story, showing a significant share of contamination originating on-farm or in the field. Education efforts aim to change behaviors like moving cattle with shotguns and to raise awareness of how even small lapses can snowball into costly food safety and economic events downstream.
Second, NCBA, as a contractor to the beef checkoff, and its research partners are exploring new detection and tracing tools. One major research direction is investigating whether foreign objects can be detected in live animals or more effectively at harvest and then traced back to their source. If successful, this could support enforcement mechanisms and targeted interventions, discourage risky practices and prevent adulterated animals from entering the supply chain unnoticed.
The goal is to scan animals as they move through chutes or other handling systems, identifying BBs or metal fragments before they enter the processing chain. She explains this could mean using imaging or scanning technologies to flag animals that pose a risk, allowing them to be diverted or more closely evaluated before they are combined into large ground beef lots.
Lancaster also stresses the industry can’t treat foreign materials as a side issue. For years, food safety conversations have centered primarily on biological hazards such as bacteria and pathogens. Those remain critical priorities, but today, foreign materials carry similar weight.
“I think we not only have to think about those biological hazards we always talk about with food safety,” she says, “but as we’ve seen foreign material become an adulterant, we truly have to take some actions to help prevent this impacting our beef demand.”
Ultimately, solving the foreign material challenge will require a combination of producer responsibility, better on-farm and field practices, new detection technologies and strong communication across the supply chain. By tackling the issue where it starts — and not just where it’s discovered — the industry can protect animal welfare, reduce costly product losses and ensure more safe, high‑quality beef makes it to consumers’ tables.
Your Next Read:
Hidden Hazards: Now is the Time to Rethink Gun Use in Cattle Handling
