Summary:
The document is Oct '01 Senate subcommitte testimony. The GAO
concludes:
Despite spending more than $1 billion annually on the federal food safety system, food safety remains a concern. For example, between May and November 2000, sliced and packaged turkey meat contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes caused 29 individuals in 10 states to become ill. In April and May of this year, imported cantaloupes contaminated with a pathogenic strain of Salmonella were linked to 54 illnesses and 2 deaths in 16 states, and in June six people in California were sickened, two of whom died, from eating oysters contaminated with Vibrio vulnificus. CDC estimates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each year. In medical costs and productivity losses, foodborne illnesses related to five principal pathogens cost the nation about $6.9 billion annually, USDA estimates.Fragmented System Hampers the Effectiveness of Food Safety Efforts
Twelve different agencies administer as many as 35 laws that make up the federal food safety system.
Figure 1 on page 5 of the PDF file shows how many fed. agencies are involved in regulating a sandwich- it illustrates the fragmented nature of the current food safety system: It's further confused by who inspects what and at what frequencies: "FSIS inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread)." Appendix II gives more examples of seemingly stupid differences- e.g. corn doq vs. bagel dog!Federal food safety expenditures are based on legal requirements, not on risk.
The report notes the radically differing inspection frequencies of USDA and FDA.Federal agencies’ authorities to enforce food safety requirements differ.
USDA agencies have the authority to (1) require food firms to register so that they can be inspected, (2) prohibit the use of processing equipment that may potentially contaminate food products, and (3) temporarily detain any suspect foods. Conversely, FDA lacks such authority and is often hindered in its food oversight efforts. For example, both USDA and FDA oversee recalls when foods they regulate are found to be contaminated or adulterated. However, if a USDA-regulated company does not voluntarily conduct the recall, USDA can detain the product for up to 20 days while it seeks a court order to seize the food. Because FDA does not have detention authority, it cannot ensure that tainted food is kept out of commerce while it seeks a court-ordered seizure.USDA and FDA implementation of the new food safety approach is inconsistent.
The USDA and FDA have implemented a new science-based regulatory approach—the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system for meat, poultry, and seafood. which places primarily responsibility on the industry, not govt. inspectors. The two agencies implemented in different manners.Oversight of imported food is inconsistent and unreliable
FSIS must make a determination that the exporting country’s food safety system provides a level of safety equivalent to the U.S. system. FDA has no similiar approach- it relies primarily on its port-of-entry inspections to detect and bar the entry of unsafe imported foods. Such an approach has been widely discredited as resource-intensive and ineffective..... Example given of a '98 GAO report (GAO/RCED-98-103) about a Customs' operation called “Bad Apple”: "about 40 percent of the imported foods FDA checked and found in violation of U.S. standards were never redelivered to Customs for disposition. These foods were not destroyed or reexported as required and presumably were released into U.S. commerce".Continuity of coordination efforts is hampered by changes in executive branch leadership.
The President’s Council on Food Safety, created in 1998, was tasked with developing a comprehensive strategic plan for federal food safety activities. In August 2000, the council agreed to initiate an interagency process to address our recommendation that FDA and the Department of Transportation, among others, enhance food safety protections by developing a strategy to regulate animal feed while in transport (GAO/RCED-00-255 Food Safety: Controls Can Be Strengthened to Reduce the Risk of Disease Linked to Unsafe Animal Feed). While the council published its strategic food safety plan in January 2001 that included numerous “action items” and recommendations for improving the federal food safety system, the council did not address a transport strategy for animal feed. Moreover, the council has not met since publishing the strategic plan, and it remains to be seen whether the new administration will act on the council’s recommendations. For example, the council’s strategic plan included an action item to allocate enforcement resources based on the potential risk to public health, but the President’s fiscal year 2002 budget showed little change in the allocation of food safety resources among agencies. (ed. This was 10 months into the Bush regime)Cited in the GAO testimony:
NAS: Ensuring Safe Food from Production to Consumption (Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., August 1998) - Concludes that the current fragmented federal food safety system is not well equipped to meet emerging challenges. Also, recommended that food safety programs be administered by a single official in charge of all federal food safety resources and activities, including outbreak management, standard-setting, inspection, monitoring, surveillance, risk assessment, enforcement, research, and education.President's Council on Food Safety- The Food Safety Strategic Plan of 1/19/01: http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/cstrpl-4.html It apparently also recommends consolidation- with no action by Bush as of 10/01.