[Senate Hearing 106-366]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-366
``OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
RESTRUCTURING AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 4, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-665 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Durbin............................................... 2
WITNESSES
Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services................... 9
Catherine E. Woteki, Ph.D., R.D., Under Secretary for Food
Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture......................... 11
Lawrence J. Dyckman, Director, Food and Agriculture Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office, accompanied by Keith Oleson,
Assistant Director, Food and Agriculture Issues, U.S. General
Accounting Office.............................................. 13
Carol Tucker Foreman, Distinguished Fellow and Director, Food
Policy Institute, Consumer Federal of America.................. 16
Nancy Donley, President, S.T.O.P., Safe Tables Our Priority...... 25
Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director, Food Safety Programs, Center for
Science in the Public Interest................................. 28
Rhona Applebaum, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, for Scientific
and Regulatory Affairs, National Food Processors Association... 30
Stacey Zawel, Ph.D., Vice President for Scientific and Regulatory
Policy, Grocery Manufacturers of America....................... 31
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Applebaum, Rhona:
Testimony.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 119
DeWaal, Caroline Smith:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Donley, Nancy:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Dyckman, Lawrence J.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Henney, Dr. Jane E.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Combined prepared statement with attachments................. 49
Foreman, Carol Tucker:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Woteki, Catherine E.:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Combined prepared statement with attachments................. 49
Zawel, Stacey:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 124
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Durbin............................... 41
Letter to Senator Durbin, from Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of
Health and Human Services; Dan Glickman, Secretary of
Agriculture; and Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology......................................... 130
Sanford A. Miller, Ph.D., Professor and Dean, Graduate School of
Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio, prepared statement............................. 131
Questions and responses from Catherine E. Woteki, Ph.D., R.D.,
Under Secretary, Food Safety, Department of Agriculture........ 135
Questions and responses from Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director,
Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interests, with
attachments A thru F........................................... 141
Questions and responses from Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate
Commissioner for Legislature, Department of Health & Human
Services....................................................... 161
``OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM''
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present Senators Voinovich and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning and thank you for coming. Today the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, holds the second
hearing on the issue of food safety entitled, ``Overlap and
Duplication in the Federal Food Safety System.''
The first hearing, which was held on July 1, examined
Federal oversight of egg safety as a case study of the
fragmentation and overlap in Federal food safety
responsibilities. This hearing will not focus on a single food
area, but rather it will examine the organization of all
Federal food safety responsibilities.
I must say that a recent event in my life has influenced my
thoughts on this issue. Last week, my wife came down with food
poisoning and I became very sick. She had a couple of days of
tests in the hospital and during the incident I kept wondering
how did she get it and how could it have been avoided. I
suspect that the source of the problem was not on the farm but
rather in the handling of the food at the retail level. I am
not saying that Federal inspectors should run out to all these
retail establishments and do something about it. That is a
county responsibility in our State. Nevertheless, that
experience that I had really brought home to me--when you have
to call emergency medical services at 1:30 in the morning and
you have a very sick wife, you really understand the problem--
much more so than someone that has not had that experience.
We have over 35 different laws that govern food safety
policy, some of which are over 100 years old. Currently 10
different agencies, within four cabinet-level departments, as
well as two independent agencies have some responsibility for
food safety. The combined food safety budget is over $1 billion
a year.
The Subcommittee will examine this issue with two questions
in mind. First, if the Federal Government were to create a food
safety system from scratch, start out right from the beginning,
would it resemble the current system that we have? And, second,
is this the best and most logical organization for Federal food
safety agencies?
In addition, the Subcommittee will discuss S. 1281, the
Safe Food Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Durbin that has
been referred to our Committee.
According to the General Accounting Office, whose work on
this issue has spanned more than two decades and included 49
reports, food safety is one of 33 program areas in the Federal
Government in which there is substantial fragmentation and
overlap. The longer I am here, I see what is going on in this
area is going on all over the Federal Government.
As I mentioned earlier, four Federal departments,
Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Treasury,
as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal
Trade Commission, have a role in food safety. Depending upon
the department or agency, the Federal Government has vastly
different approaches to food safety. For example, the Food
Safety and Inspection Services in the USDA conducts continuous
inspections at meat, poultry and egg processing plants around
the country. The Food and Drug Administration, which is in
Health and Human Services, on the other hand, conducts
inspections of food processing plants within its jurisdiction
once every 10 years, on average.
In addition, several analysts of Federal food safety policy
argue that some of our efforts lack a scientific basis and
should be focused on the most severe food-borne threats to
human health, specifically micro-bio contamination.
I view this issue primarily as one of government
management, and am most interested in learning how and why
there are 12 different agencies involved in the oversight of
food safety and what we can do to improve the current system.
I am here today to listen. I had not studied this issue in
depth before learning of Senator Durbin's interest in this
legislation. However, I do look forward to learning from our
witnesses this morning whether there is any justification for
the fragmentation which seems to exist and whether we can do
better.
I would now like to yield to the Ranking Minority Member of
this Subcommittee, Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Chairman Voinovich, thank you for this
hearing. I appreciate it very much and it is a topic which is
near and dear to my heart and your family experience this last
week, which you told me about just a few days ago, is repeated
about 81 million times each year in the United States. And
unfortunately, for 9,000 of those cases, it is fatal. Thank God
it did not happen to your family nor has it happened to mine,
but we will hear testimony today from a family where it has
happened. It is a serious issue.
And it is one that, frankly, Congress really has no excuse
to avoid any longer. In 1977, this same Committee issued a
report about fragmentation in the food safety jurisdiction of
the Federal Government. Twenty-two years ago we were dealing
with this and saying that we have to do something about it.
And, sadly, we have done very little.
I want to say at the outset that the people who are
testifying today, Dr. Henney, Dr. Woteki, folks from the
General Accounting Office, as well as Carol Tucker Foreman, I
believe are all sincere professional individuals who really
have the public interest in mind. But I have to say that some
of the best medical professionals when they get into the
Federal bureaucracy kind of lose sight of the goal here. It all
becomes a turf battle, a jurisdictional dispute and the same
thing happens on Capitol Hill. Committee chairmen, everybody
has got a piece of the action. Nobody wants to give it up. You
go downtown, the USDA is afraid they are going to lose their
employees if this goes to a single food agency. The FDA has the
same fear and so do many other agencies.
And that competition has created gridlock and has created
utter nonsense when it comes to the responsibility for food
safety in America. We have on this table before you here some
examples of the different jurisdiction for foods. And it is
incredible to look at one pizza and decide that is the USDA's
responsibility, another pizza is the FDA's and the list goes on
and on.
And if you are out--I am kind of picking on Italian foods
today, I do not mean to--but if you go out to the food store,
and you buy beef ravioli and cheese ravioli, you have just
bought two products that have different jurisdictions under the
Federal Government.
Beef ravioli, Department of Agriculture, of course; cheese
ravioli, why, of course, the Food and Drug Administration. You
would not want the USDA to look at cheese ravioli, would you?
Or you would not want the FDA to look at beef ravioli. And that
just, I think, illustrates what has happened here.
Let me use one that comes from a little lighter vein and
perhaps will betray my age a little bit. Forgive this, it may
not be the best graphic, but one of my favorite routines on
Saturday Night Live was Father Guido Sarducci, who had a
routine entitled, ``How Many Popes in the Pizza?'' Well, we
decided to take a look after the GAO report to find out how
many different Federal agencies are responsible for making sure
that the pizza that comes to your table is safe. You will
notice that EPA, Agriculture Marketing Service, FDA, Animal
Plant Health Inspection Safety, the Grain Inspection Safety
Agency, and the Food Safety Inspection Service, all have a hand
in inspecting this pizza on its way to our tables. Six
different Federal agencies. How many bureaucrats in the pizza,
I would ask Father Sarducci. And that is what it boils down to.
And what are we going to do about it? Frankly, we have not
done enough. We have talked about it, we have studied it, we
have issued all sorts of pious statements about how we have to
get this under control and I am just not pleased with where we
are today.
First, let me tell you why this is important. We do have
the safest food supply in the world but it can be a lot safer.
We do have a good food safety inspection system but it can be
less bureaucratic, it can be more efficient, it can be driven
by science and not by politics. And I think that is what every
consumer wants.
In addition to that, we have to concede that we are
entering into an era where food safety is a big ticket item,
not just in terms of life and death for Americans, but also in
terms of commerce. Do you know what is going on in Europe
today? We are in pitched battle in Europe today about the
safety of food. And as a result, we are finding many of our
exports from the United States that are being excluded, the
Europeans will not buy them. They say they are dangerous. And
the reason?
Frankly, there is no FDA or U.S. Department of Agriculture
in the European Union that people trust. And, as a result, it
takes nothing to panic the consumers in Europe away from
products or toward products. It really argues, from my point of
view, for us to have a science-based, coordinated, single
agency effort here. We have to be able to defend the products
that we sell to American families and the products we export
around the world. And as long as you are dealing with six
different agencies when it comes to pizza, you can see how we
are fragmented and moving in so many different directions.
So, from the viewpoint of the 21st Century and the demands
consumers will have worldwide for trust in the food that they
eat, I think this concept is long overdue.
Let me show you a couple of other charts that illustrate
some of the history of this.\1\ I will go through them very
quickly. We have had a series of GAO study reports. I am happy
that GAO is here today. This has been an ongoing effort by the
GAO. That just shows 5 or 6 years. All of them concluding that
a single food safety agency was the way to go to try to make
some sense out of the nonsense of our current bureaucracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Governmental Affairs Committee, as I said, in 1977 and
since has said repeatedly that dividing responsibility for food
safety is not smart and we should put it in a single agency.
The different reports by Vice President Gore on the same
thing--this is from the National Academy of Sciences--I am
going to be referring to this throughout the day because the
industry people for some reason jumped on this report in August
1998 and said, proof positive, the White House is opposed to a
single food safety agency. And, yet, if you will look through
it, they talk about a single voice, a single unified agency,
one official.
I really wish the people who are here representing the
business community would not be so frightened by the idea of
some change. This change could be for the better. You could
have more confidence when it comes to consumers buying your
product and you could have better results when you try to
export overseas. But there has been this wall of resistance
from the private sector side which just does not make sense.
We are more than happy to work with you. We are not trying
to make your life any more difficult. We are trying to make it
more sensible. If you make pizza and the USDA inspector shows
up every day and the FDA inspector shows up every 3 years, 5
years or 10 years, how does that help you as a businessperson
to make your plans and to go about your business? And I hope
the private sector will be a little more open-minded as we get
into this.
We have asked the former food officials who have been
involved in this from FDA as well as different agencies, and
Carol Tucker Foreman, of course, is quoted here, and we will
hear from her in person. Dr. Kessler said it is ironic that the
National Government deals with food safety issues in such a
haphazard, inconsistent manner. And he goes on to say that we
need a single agency with one mission and one consistent set of
food safety goals. After the folks leave government they tell
us this.
Sometimes, while they are there, but after they leave
government they look back and say, why did I not do something
about this tangled mess of Federal agencies stumbling over one
another with the responsibility for food safety?
Well, I thank the Chairman for bringing this together today
and a lot more will come out during the course of the hearing.
I am looking forward to the testimony.
Thank you.
The prepared statement of Senator Durbin follows:
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on
an issue of importance to every American virtually every time they eat.
I appreciate your willingness to follow up on our hearing regarding egg
safety with this more comprehensive look at the fragmentation in our
Nation's food safety system.
This is not the first time this committee has studied the issue of
food safety. Consider the following quote from a study produced by this
committee in 1977:
Divided responsibility between the Department of Agriculture
and the Food and Drug Administration for food regulation has
created a regulatory program which is often duplicative,
sometimes contradictory, undeniably costly, and unduly complex.
The current jurisdiction overlap has resulted in redundant
inspections of the same plant, the shifting of responsibility
of particular food items at various stages of production, and
inconsistent food labeling policy. The recurrent problems of
overlap, duplication, and concurrent jurisdiction are addressed
by UDSA and FDA officials on an ad hoc case-by-case basis.
There is currently no systematic or rational overall approach
to Federal food regulation.
Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate Study
on Federal Regulation, Volume V, Regulatory Organization
December 21, 1977, p. xv.
Mr. Chairman, today this subcommittee revisits this issue and I am
sad to report that the findings, reported by the Committee on
Governmental Affairs over 20 years ago, remain an accurate description
of the Federal food safety system of today. But we can change this
situation. We currently have before us the Safe Food Act of 1999 (S.
1281)--a piece of legislation that can fundamentally set the course for
a food safety system that is efficient, effective, based in science,
and has the promise of maintaining the confidence of the consuming
public.
Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with one of the
safest and most abundant food supplies in the world. However, we can do
better. Foodborne illness is a significant problem. While food may
never be completely free of risk, we must strive to make our food as
safe as possible. Americans at every level--Federal, State, and local
government, industry, and the consuming public--share this
responsibility.
The safety of our Nation's food supply is facing tremendous
pressures with regard to emerging pathogens, an aging population with a
growing number of people at high risk for foodborne illnesses, broader
changes in food distribution patterns, an increasing volume of food
imports, and changing consumption patterns.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that as many as 81
million people will suffer food poisoning this year and more than 9,000
will die. Children and the elderly are especially vulnerable. In terms
of medical costs and productivity losses, foodborne illness costs the
Nation up to $37 billion annually. The situation is not likely to
improve without decisive action. The Department of Health and Human
Services predicts that foodborne illnesses and deaths will increase 10-
15 percent over the next decade.
In 1997, a Princeton Research survey found that 44 percent of
Americans believe the food supply in this country is less safe than it
was 10 years ago. American consumers spend more than $617 billion
annually on food, of which about $511 billion is spent on foods grown
on U.S. farms. Our ability to assure the safety of our food and to
react rapidly to potential threats to food safety is critical not only
for public health, but also for the vitality of both domestic and rural
economies and international trade.
Consumer confidence is important--just look what's happening in
Europe, where Belgium has become embroiled in a dioxin crisis. Days
before the national elections, poultry, eggs, pork, beef, and dairy
products were withdrawn from supermarket shelves. Butcher shops closed
and livestock farms were quarantined. Since then, countries worldwide
have restricted imports of eggs, chickens, and pork from the European
Union. Public outrage in Belgium over the dioxin scandal led to a
disastrous showing by the ruling party in the national and European
elections on June 14, and the government was forced to resign. Food
safety concerns and fears are global.
Part of the controversy in Europe is the failure of government to
win the confidence of the consumers. People lose confidence and panic
unnecessarily when their government can't step up to its
responsibilities. From ``mad cow'' disease to dioxin, we cannot afford
to ignore these lessons regarding government's role in effectively and
efficiently managing food safety. A credible Federal food safety system
reassures consumers and makes our products more acceptable--here and
abroad.
Today, food moves through a global marketplace. This was not the
case in the early 1900's when the first Federal food safety agencies
were created. Throughout this century, Congress responded by adding
layer upon layer--agency upon agency--to answer the pressing food
safety needs of the day. That's how the Federal food safety system got
to the point where it is today. And again as we face increasing
pressures on food safety, the Federal Government must respond. But we
must respond not only to these pressures but also to the very
fragmented nature of the Federal food safety structure.
Fragmentation of our food safety system is a burden that must be
changed to protect the public health. Currently, there are at least 12
different Federal agencies and 35 different laws governing food safety,
and 28 House and Senate subcommittees with food safety oversight. With
overlapping jurisdictions, Federal agencies often lack accountability
on food safety-related issues.
In a hearing last month, this subcommittee examined the way in
which this fragmentation negatively affected the safety of the Nation's
egg supply. Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) has been recognized as a cause
of food-borne illness associated with mishandled or undercooked eggs
since the mid-1980s. In 1997, SE may have caused about 300,000
illnesses, resulting in 230 deaths. Just last month, an International
House of Pancakes restaurant in Richmond, Virginia was closed after 92
people contracted salmonella from eating eggs there. Seven people were
hospitalized. Yet in over a decade since this problem first surfaced,
the four Federal agencies with egg safety responsibility still have not
implemented an effective comprehensive SE-prevention program.
At last month's hearing, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
released its report, U.S. Lacks a Consistent Farm-to-Table Approach to
Egg Safety, which described the gaps, inconsistencies, and
inefficiencies in the current egg safety system.
The General Accounting Office has been unequivocal in its
recommendation for consolidation of Federal food safety programs. GAO's
April 1998 report states that ``[s]ince 1992, we have frequently
reported on the fragmented and inconsistent organization of food safety
responsibilities in the Federal Government.'' In a May 25, 1994,
report, GAO stated that its ``estimony is based on over 60 reports and
studies issued over the last 25 years by GAO, agency Inspectors
General, and others.'' The Appendix to the 1994 GAO report listed: 49
reports since 1977, 9 USDA Office of Inspector General reports since
1986, 1 HHS Office of Inspector General report in 1991, and 15 reports
and studies by Congress, scientific organizations, and others since
1981.
Again, earlier this year, GAO in its 21-volume report on government
waste, pointed to the lack of coordination of the Federal food safety
efforts as an example. ``So many cooks are spoiling the broth,'' said
the GAO while highlighting the absurdity of having one Federal agency
inspecting frozen meat pizza and another inspecting frozen cheese
pizza. But GAO is not the only agency calling for consolidation.
Last August, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a
report recommending the establishment of a ``unified and central
framework for managing Federal food safety programs,'' arguing that it
should be ``one that is headed by a single official and which has the
responsibility and control of resources for all Federal food safety
activities. . .'' That report further states, ``Many members of the
committee are of the view that the most viable means of achieving these
goals would be to create a single, unified agency headed by a single
administrator. . .'' I agree with this conclusion; S. 1281--the Safe
Food Act of 1999--will do just that.
The administration has stepped forward on the issue of food
safety--the President's Food Safety Initiatives and the President's
Council on Food Safety have focused efforts to track and prevent
microbial foodborne illnesses. I commend President Clinton and
Secretaries Glickman and Shalala for their commitment to improving our
Nation's food safety and inspection systems. I also acknowledge the
long list of accomplishments by our agencies, represented today by Dr.
Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Dr. Jane Henney, Commissioner of the Food
and Drug Administration in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. I commend the dedication of the professionals in our Federal
agencies who are committed to improving the safety of our food supply.
This administration has produced many food safety successes through
a dedicated focus to coordinate agencies' efforts. Some suggest that
this recent commitment to enhanced coordination is all that is needed.
But this isn't the first time that coordination has been suggested.
Again I refer to the 1977 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report
which says, ``While we support the recent efforts of FDA and USDA to
improve coordination between the agencies, periodic meetings will not
be enough to overcome the problems outlined above.'' Coordination alone
is not enough, as the NAS committee reports, ``[T]he structure should
also have a firm foundation in statute and thus not be temporary and
easily changed by political agendas or executive directives.'' We must
not retreat from recent food safety advances that have been made. We
must provide the means to sustain this progress.
Dr. Sanford A. Miller, a former Director of the FDA Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (1978 to 1987) who also served on the NAS
study committee, was unfortunately unable to appear to testify today.
His written statement is submitted for the record. Dr. Miller sums it
up well in saying, ``Each agency operates under a different mandate,
governed by different laws and answering to different constituencies
and traditions. To ask them to voluntarily ignore this history is
naive. There needs to be a permanent structure focused on food safety
to meet the enduring needs of the American people.''
Earlier this year in response to the NAS report, even the
President's Council on Food Safety stated its support for the NAS
recommendation calling for a new statute that establishes a unified
framework for food safety programs with a single official with control
over all Federal food safety resources.
As directed by the President, the Council is currently developing a
strategic plan. Three weeks ago, the council hosted a day-long meeting
to gather public comment as part of that process. Food Chemical News
reported that a ``number of participants suggested that a single food
safety agency would solve many of the problems by improving
coordination and resolving uneven funding across agencies that makes it
difficult to target resources based on food safety risks.'' I encourage
the Council to seriously consider those comments.
An independent single food safety agency is needed to replace the
current, fragmented system. The Safe Food Act of 1999 would combine the
functions of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, FDA's Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and Center for Veterinary
Medicine, the Department of Commerce's Seafood Inspection Program, and
the food safety functions of other Federal agencies. This new,
independent agency would be funded with the combined budgets from these
consolidated agencies.
With overlapping jurisdictions, Federal agencies many times lack
accountability on food safety-related issues. There are simply too many
cooks in the kitchen. A single, independent agency would help focus our
policy and improve enforcement of food safety and inspection laws.
It's time to move forward. Let us stop using multiple Federal
agencies to inspect pizza. Instead let us ``deliver'' what makes
sense--a single, independent food safety agency.
A single, independent agency with uniform food safety standards and
regulations based on food hazards would provide an easier framework for
implementing U.S. standards in an international context. When our own
agencies don't have uniform safety and inspection standards for all
potentially hazardous foods, the establishment of uniform international
standards is next to impossible.
Research also could be better coordinated within a single agency
than among multiple programs. Currently, Federal funding for food
safety research is spread over at least 20 Federal agencies, and
coordination among those agencies is ad hoc at best.
New technologies to improve food safety could be approved more
rapidly with one food safety agency. Currently, food safety
technologies must go through multiple agencies for approval, often
adding years of delay.
In this era of limited budgets, it is our responsibility to
modernize and streamline the food safety system. The U.S. simply cannot
afford to continue operating multiple systems. This is not about more
regulation, a super agency, or increased bureaucracy, it's about common
sense and more effective marshaling of our existing Federal resources.
With the incidence of food recalls on the rise, it is important to
move beyond short-term solutions to major food safety problems. A
single, independent food safety and inspection agency could more easily
work toward long-term solutions to the frustrating and potentially
life-threatening food safety issues we face .
Some individuals have argued that we don't need a whole new
government bureaucracy, that moving boxes around on an organizational
chart won't make food safer, and that if the system isn't broken then
it doesn't need to be fixed. But what they don't appreciate is that the
current fragmented system makes it impossible to apply resources to the
areas of greatest need. The current fragmented system makes it
difficult for the agencies to be held accountable. For example, the
current fragmented system places food safety efforts in conflict with
the mission for agricultural market promotion. A system that determines
which agency inspects which plant based on whether the plant produces
an open-faced sandwich rather than a traditional one is one which, if
not broken, is certainly illogical.
A single, independent food safety agency will not have the burdens
of our current fragmented system. Consolidation of food safety
functions in a single, independent agency will preserve the expertise
currently in our agencies in a manner that will promote more efficient
and effective government. One agency instead of 12 or more handling
food safety is a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape.
Mr. Chairman, we have before this subcommittee a bill, S. 1281,
which can bring the various agencies together to eliminate the overlap
and confusion that have at times, unfortunately, characterized our food
safety efforts. We need action, not simply reaction. Our current
fragmented food safety structure is not the best that we are capable of
having and it certainly is not the most logically designed system.
Members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee of 1977 understood
the problem, and they were correct when they reported, ``Responsibility
for Federal food regulation, which is currently divided, should be
assigned to a single agency.'' I hope we can finally achieve that goal.
I welcome today's witnesses and the insights they will share, and I
look forward to working with you toward a more effective and less
fragmented food safety system.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
I would like to now introduce the first panel of witnesses.
Representing the administration are Dr. Jane Henney, who is the
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; and Dr. Catherine
Woteki, Under Secretary of Food Safety, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Lawrence Dyckman is the Director of Food and
Agricultural Issues at U.S. General Accounting Office, and he
is accompanied by Keith Oleson, Assistant Director, Food and
Agricultural Issues.
And rounding out the panel is Carol Tucker Foreman, who is
the Distinguished Fellow and Director of the Food Policy
Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.
We thank all of you for coming this morning. It is the
custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses.
Therefore, I would ask you to stand and raise your right hands,
and I would also ask the witnesses that will be on the second
panel to stand, and I will swear all of you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Senator Voinovich. We will now call on our first witness,
Dr. Henney. We are anxious to hear what you have to say.
TESTIMONY OF JANE E. HENNEY, M.D.,\1\ COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Dr. Henney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me express on
behalf of all of us on the panel we are very sorry to hear
about your wife but glad that she has recovered well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The combined prepared statement of Dr. Henney and Ms. Woteki
appears in the Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, we are
pleased to be here this morning to discuss one of the
administration's highest priorities, protecting our Nation's
food supply. I am Dr. Jane Henney, the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs at FDA and I am joined by Dr. Cathy Woteki, Under
Secretary for Food Safety at USDA.
We appreciate your continued interest in ensuring the
safety of our Nation's food supply and look forward to a full
discussion of the issues you are raising today. Although the
American food supply is among the safest in the world, too many
cases of foodborne illness occur in the United States each
year.
Mr. Chairman, today Dr. Woteki and I will describe many of
the achievements that have happened in the past several years
but we will also look at the work that remains.
Today's food safety challenges are very complex. First,
Americans are eating a greater variety of foods, particularly
seafood, poultry, fresh fruit, and vegetables that are
available throughout the year. Second, Americans are eating
more of their meals that are prepared away from home. Third,
nearly a quarter of the U.S. population--the very young, the
old, the immune-compromised--is at higher risk for foodborne
illness. And perhaps the most important element in our changing
world is the emergence of new and more virulent foodborne
pathogens.
Since 1942, the number of known foodborne pathogens has
increased more than five-fold. Until the first decade of this
century, the regulation of food safety was primarily the
responsibility of State and local officials. The Pure Food and
Drugs Act and the Meat Inspection Act were both passed by
Congress in 1906. From the beginning, nearly 100 years ago,
these laws focused on different areas of the food supply and
each of them took a different approach to the food safety
issues because of different problems that were present at that
time.
The Pure Food and Drugs Act placed the initial
responsibility for producing safe and wholesome food squarely
on the shoulders of the food industry. The Federal Government's
job, in effect, was to police the industry. Unlike FDA's law,
the USDA's Meat Inspection Act requires continual government
inspections in the slaughterhouse. These laws form the
foundation of the food safety system today.
Under the current structure, FDA has jurisdiction over 78
percent of the Nation's food supply--all domestic and imported
foods except for meat, poultry and egg products. FDA has
jurisdiction where food is produced, processed, packaged,
stored or sold. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspections Service
has regulatory and inspection responsibility for meat, poultry
and egg products.
And although the guiding statutes of the USDA and FDA
approach food safety differently, today each agency relies on
sound science and risk-based approaches to food safety. As our
written testimony explains our efforts are strengthened by
close working relationships with other Federal agencies such as
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and our State and local
partners. Together we promote food safety and prevent foodborne
illness and food hazards through coordinated and integrated
activities.
Food safety has been a high priority for this
administration. This year for the third consecutive year, the
administration has strongly supported the multi-agency effort
to protect the health of the American public by improving the
safety of the Nation's food supply. This process began with the
May 1997 report to the President entitled, ``Food Safety: From
Farm To Table,'' a national food safety initiative.
This report contained recommendations that are both
comprehensive and ambitious, and implementation of the report
has depended upon a food safety system that is integrated and
interdependent.
The report has led to a very needed shift in our collective
attention and resources toward the growing problem of microbial
contamination of food. In just 2 years, the administration has
undertaken the vast majority of the report's recommendations.
Last August the President established the Council on Food
Safety, whose goal is to make the food supply even safer
through a seamless science-based food safety system supported
by well coordinated surveillance, standards, inspection,
enforcement, research, risk assessment, education, and
strategic planning.
Dr. Woteki will be discussing this strategic plan. I would
like to just briefly highlight a few of the administration's
food safety successes. One, in July 1995, HHS and USDA began a
collaborative project called FoodNet under this initiative. It
provides a strong network for responding to new and emerging
foodborne illnesses, for monitoring the burden of foodborne
illness, and identifying the source of specific foodborne
diseases. PulseNet was developed by the CDC and it is now
joined by a collaborative effort with HHS and USDA, as well as
several States, that enables a national network of public
health laboratories to perform DNA fingerprinting on bacteria
that may be foodborne. PulseNet permits rapid and accurate
detection of foodborne illness outbreaks.
The National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring Program was
established in 1996 as a strong inter-agency cooperative
initiative. There are more achievements than I can highlight in
this short time. I want to leave time for Dr. Woteki to go
through our strategic planning process and specifically some
highlights of our successes in the area of research.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin [presiding]. Thank you very much. Dr.
Woteki.
TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE E. WOTEKI,\1\ Ph.D., UNDER SECRETARY FOR
FOOD SAFETY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Woteki. Thank you very much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The combined prepared statement of Dr. Henney and Ms. Woteki
appears in the Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, sorry you have to leave. Senator Durbin, I am
pleased to be here as well, and I would like to echo the
comment that Dr. Henney made about the commitments that we have
within the administration to work together at all levels of
government to strengthen our national food safety system. I
have also brought with me today a couple of charts, as well,
and I would like to draw your attention to the one that is over
here on the side.
This is actually taken from the same report that you cited,
that the National Academy of Sciences issued last year, in
which they describe the attributes of an effective food safety
system and this diagram tries to capture all of those elements.
I think what is important is to focus on the center oval in
that diagram. Really the important focus of our food safety
system and any other effective food safety system is on public
health and improving human well-being. In addition, this chart
illustrates that there are many different key players in the
food safety system: The private sector, government, as well as
consumers. And that they have independent functions but they
are also interdependent in many ways.
They are all dependent on a science-based approach that
depends on research and the provision of education and
important information that each of these sectors needs in order
to fulfill its roles and functions.
I think the chart also illustrates the fact that these
groups have to work together through partnerships in order to
achieve that central focus and goal: Improving public health.
Now, we believe, within the administration, that the
activities that we have ongoing do meet these attributes of an
effective food safety system. And, as Dr. Henney indicated in
her testimony, we are trying to put our testimony together to
actually highlight the accomplishments over the last several
years with respect to furthering these attributes of an
effective food safety system.
I would like to point out a second chart that we have
brought along with us. It illustrates the logo for the Fight
Bac campaign, which has been a very effective food safety
education program that also has been science-based and has also
been the result of a very effective partnership among the
private sector, consumer groups, Federal agencies, and other
organizations.
Now, before I continue where Dr. Henney left off, I would
like to just briefly talk about the role of the Office of Food
Safety within the Department of Agriculture because it is a new
office that was created in the 1994 reorganization. We believe
that the creation of this office has effectively laid to rest
the complaints that have arisen in the past about the potential
for conflict of interest within the department with respect to
food safety. By separating the regulatory from the marketing
functions, we believe that we have successfully put those
complaints to rest.
The legislation that authorized the reorganization requires
that the Office of Food Safety be filled by an individual who
has a specific and proven public health or food safety
background. And these changes have very substantially enhanced
USDA's public health focus and also, I believe, fortified food
safety's presence within the department's broad mission.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service does report to the
Office of Food Safety. As you know, we have the responsibility
for the inspection of meat, poultry and egg products sold in
interstate commerce, and also for the inspection of imported
products. The agency has approximately 7,000 Federal inspectors
that are located in 6,000 plants and, subject to the
authorizing legislation for the agency, conducts continuous
inspections.
This amounts to approximately 8 billion poultry, 135
million livestock, as well as inspections that are conducted in
processing plants.
Now, our testimony focuses on five additional attributes
that the academy report listed for an effective food safety
system. And I would like to just briefly describe them now.
The first is research. And since we have a science-based
approach to food safety, we have continued to emphasize and
even given more emphasis under the President's Food Safety
initiative to the importance of R&D. And certainly through the
appropriations, Congress has very substantially increased the
amount of funding that is going to food safety research.
We also believe that these R&D activities are paying off in
the development of new technologies that can be implemented
farm to table to improve food safety. Another attribute that
the academy report describes is effective regulation. And in
the case of both the Food and Drug Administration and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service, we are implementing new science-
based, hazard analysis and critical control program approaches
to improve food safety. So, we believe that we are making very
substantial strides in effective regulation.
There are also independent reviews conducted both of the
seafood inspection as well as of the meat and poultry HACCP
implementations that are demonstrating the effectiveness of
those programs.
New technologies are dependent on the science. And we are
seeing the adoption of new technologies from steam
pasteurization to anti-microbial rinses to the use of
competitive exclusion products, to improve food safety, again,
at the farm level as well as at the processing level.
We are also working on education and information programs
to improve the amount and quality of science-based information
that is available to the public as well as to all who are
responsible for food safety in that continuum from farm to
table. I mentioned the Fight Bac campaign at the beginning of
my remarks. Clearly, we are also taking other steps through
consumer labeling approaches and other information provision
approaches.
Last, we recognize the importance of partnerships with
State and local governments as well as other partners
throughout the food system. Both FDA and FSIS historically have
had very strong partnerships with the States. Two recent
examples are the Seafood HACCP Alliance in which States worked
closely with FDA and the industry in the development of that
new program and USDA's continued work with the 25 States that
operate inspection programs.
Now, where do we go from here? Dr. Henney referred to the
work of the President's Food Safety Council and of the Task
Force that both Dr. Henney and I co-chair that is emphasizing
the development of a strategic plan and budget to develop
further improvements in our approaches to assure the public the
safety of their food.
Now, to draft the strategic plan, the Council established
the Task Force that Dr. Henney and I co-chair. We have through
that Task Force, developed a draft set of goals and objectives.
We have shared them with stakeholders in a meeting that was
held last month to solicit their views and opinions and we have
scheduled a second public meeting for October 1999, in just a
couple of months.
We will be providing a copy of a draft plan to the public
early in the year 2000 and our final report is due to the
President in July of next year. Now, we firmly believe that a
seamless, science-based food safety system is critical to
ensuring the safety of our food supply and in protecting public
health. How we get there should be carefully thought through
with all of our partners and stakeholders. And I would like to
assure you that we are approaching this effort very seriously
and, we think, as expediently as we can and building in ample
opportunities for consultation with stakeholders and partners.
And we are considering the full range of options that are
available to us and the recommendations of the academy.
I very much thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you and to discuss our food safety programs and we are
certainly looking forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
I would like to thank you and Mr. Dyckman as well as Mr.
Oleson, from the General Accounting Office, for the work that
they have done on this issue. They have testified before and I
welcome their return to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Dyckman.
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE J. DYCKMAN,\1\ DIRECTOR, FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED
BY KEITH OLESON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Dyckman. It is always nice to be before this
Subcommittee, Senator Durbin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dyckman appears in the Appendix
on page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of what I have to say you have summarized so, if you
will bear with me repeating your statements because I think we
agree on many points. Millions of people become ill and
thousands die each year from eating unsafe food. As we have
stated in previous reports and testimonies, fundamental changes
to the food safety system would minimize the risk of foodborne
illnesses. These changes include moving to a uniform risk-based
inspection system, administered by a single agency.
My testimony today provides another view of our work on the
problems resulting from the current fragmented food safety
system and discusses our views on where in the Federal
Government food safety responsibilities should reside.
As the chart up there shows and as you have already
described, the Federal food safety system is very complex.
Senator Durbin. I want to give you credit, the GAO credit
for inspiring our pizza. That was your chart that did that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dyckman. Yes. I actually liked your props a little
better than ours. We do have a chart. There are 12 agencies
involved with food safety. Thirty-five different laws ensuring
the safety of cheese pizzas and meat pizzas, involves a half a
dozen agencies.
Currently, food safety laws not only assign specific food
commodities to particular agencies but also provide agencies
with different authorities and responsibilities that reflect
significantly different regulatory approaches.
The following samples from our prior work show some of the
problems we found in reviewing the Nation's fragmented food
safety system. Federal agencies are not using their inspection
resources efficiently because the frequency of inspection is
based on the agency's regulatory approach. Some foods and
establishments may be receiving too much attention while others
not enough. For example, USDA inspects meat and poultry plants,
as we have said, at least daily; while FDA inspects firms that
process foods with similar risks such as rabbit, venison,
buffalo, and quail, on average, once a decade.
Senator Durbin. Let me stop you, Mr. Dyckman, if I might
for a moment. Going back to the illustration here of this
cheese ravioli, the FDA responsibility, once in a decade they
might come through the plant to look at this product?
Mr. Dyckman. That is our understanding.
Senator Durbin. And on the beef ravioli, a daily
inspection?
Mr. Dyckman. Yes.
Additionally, responsibilities for the oversight of
chemical residues in foods are fragmented among three Federal
agencies: The FDA, USDA, and EPA. As a result, chemicals posing
similar risks may be treated differently by the agencies
because they operate under different laws and regulations. This
permeates down to the State level as well. For instance,
because States use different Federal agency methodologies for
determining tolerance levels, fish considered safe to eat in
one State, can swim to the waters of another State and thus are
considered unsafe.
Enforcement authorities granted to the agencies also differ
significantly and obviously that is one of the underlying
problems with this whole food safety mess or quagmire. For
example, unlike FDA, USDA has authority to require food
processors to register so that they can be inspected. USDA can
also temporarily detain any suspect meat and poultry products.
We have also done work on imported foods and found that
regulation of that is inconsistent and unreliable. For meat and
poultry imports, USDA, by statute, can and does shift most of
the responsibility for ensuring product safety to the exporting
country and that is where we think it should be. In contrast,
FDA must rely primarily on widely discredited port-of-entry
inspections which cover less than 2 percent of shipments
entering the United States in 1997.
Fragmented responsibilities also cause problems for the
food industry because there has not always been a complete
clear, unified communication about health risks associated with
contaminated food products.
So, how do we deal with all of these problems? Well, we
believe the most effective solution is to consolidate food
safety programs under a single agency with a uniform authority.
It is not a new concept, it is not a difficult concept, and it
is common sense. It was debated first in 1972 by the Congress
with a proposed bill to transfer FDA's responsibilities,
including its food safety activities to a new independent
agency.
We have discussed today that the National Academy of
Sciences mirrored much of the recommendations in our prior work
and concluded that the current fragmented Federal food safety
structure is not well equipped to meet emerging challenges and
recommended that the Congress establish by statute a unified
and central framework for managing Federal food safety systems.
And the important thing and one that I want to stress is they
recommended a system that is headed by a single official, not
by several officials.
However, whether food safety responsibilities should be
housed under an independent agency or an existing department is
subject to debate. In this regard, I just want to point out
that we reported recently on the experiences of four countries
that have consolidated or in the process of consolidating their
food safety responsibilities. Great Britain's and Ireland's
efforts were responding to heightened public concerns about the
safety of their food supplies and choose to consolidate
responsibilities in the agencies that report to their ministers
of health, because the public lost confidence in the
agricultural ministries that had responsibilities for some food
products.
While Canada and Denmark were more concerned about program
effectiveness, cost savings, efficiencies, and they have
consolidated their activities in agencies that already had
those responsibilities, basically the agencies that report to
the ministers of Agriculture.
But regardless of where a single agency is housed, what is
most important in our opinion, is the adherence to four key
principles. First, a clear commitment by the Federal Government
to consumer protection. Second, a system that is founded on
uniform laws that are risk-based. Third, adequate resources to
carry out the system. Fourth, competent and aggressive
administration of the laws by the responsible agency and
effective oversight by the Congress.
If I could just make one more point, Senator Durbin, the
original question was if we were asked to redesign the food
safety system, how would we do it? If we had to start from
scratch, as we enter the 21st Century, we would never build the
present bifurcated system. It would not make any sense. I do
not think if you asked a 100 people to start from scratch would
they come up with what we have now. People are working hard,
with best intentions, they are doing a fairly good job at what
they do. But it is not that well coordinated.
It is not completely risk-based. Parts of it are, large
parts of it are not. So, why should we be satisfied with it
now? Why not transform it? Why not transform it into the type
of system and into the type of activities that your legislation
calls for?
This completes our statement. And we would be happy to
answer any questions.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Carol Tucker Foreman, thank you for being with us.
TESTIMONY OF CAROL TUCKER FOREMAN,\1\ DISTINGUISHED FELLOW AND
DIRECTOR, FOOD POLICY INSTITUTE, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
Ms. Foreman. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Foreman appears in the Appendix
on page 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Carol Tucker Foreman. From 1977 to 1981 I served as
Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services at the
Department of Agriculture with responsibility for meat, poultry
and egg products inspection. I am here today to provide the
perspective of one who has tried to make this system work for
the American people but is now freed from the institutional
imperative to defend the status quo.
Unlike the government witnesses, I can answer your
question. If the Federal Government were to create a food
safety system from scratch, would it resemble the current
system? Is this the best and most logical organization for
Federal food safety agencies? I think you know my answer to
both of those questions would be an emphatic, no.
Two years ago Congress provided the National Academy of
Sciences funds to examine the Nation's food safety system and
recommend ways to improve it. In ensuring safe food from
production to consumption the committee recommended that
Congress create a unified and central framework for managing
Federal food safety programs headed by a single Federal
official who has both the authority and control of resources
necessary to manage food safety efforts.
The committee also pointed out that ad hoc efforts--and I
include in that the President's Food Safety Council--will not
suffice to bring about the vast cultural changes and
collaborative efforts needed to create an integrated system.
The problems with the present system are obvious. It does
not produce an acceptable level of public health protection.
Eighty-one million cases of foodborne illness and 9,000 deaths
each year from food poisoning are not marks of success.
Second, the present food safety system does not use human
or public resources well. In fiscal year 1998, FDA and FSIS
spent just shy of $1 billion for food safety. USDA with the
responsibility for only meat, poultry and eggs, got $746
million of that; FDA, with responsibility for all the other
food products, got only $222 million. The fiscal year 1998
budget paid for 7,200 USDA inspectors, while FDA had only 250.
That disparity may explain why a Center for Science in the
Public Interest analysis of CDC data showed that food products
inspected by FDA were implicated in more foodborne illness
outbreaks than foods inspected by USDA. The present system
depletes the energies and demeans the talents of committed
public servants who spend way too much of their time bumping
each other and jockeying for advantage.
The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the
Under Secretary and the administrator of FSIS spend hours
negotiating who is going to sign a letter, whose language is
going to be used, who is going to get to sit at the table and
where they will sit? What a waste of public funds and public
talent.
In March 1999, President Clinton's Council on Food Safety
committed to examining a unified system. The Council has not
done that. The strategic plan does not say a word about it. It
is gone. What a shocking lack of leadership. The Commissioner,
the Under Secretary, and the trade associations, will testify
here today, are going to urge you to ignore all the facts that
have been laid out by the General Accounting Office.
Trade associations and the government will argue that
tinkering around the edges and a little more cooperation will
do the job.
With all due respect, that has been tried before. Fixing
the present system by tinkering and nibbling is like trying to
teach a pig to sing. It will not work, and the pig does not
like it.
Our system is broke. If we are serious about protecting the
public health we need to fix it. Consolidating food safety in
one agency with one budget, one leader and, ultimately, one
authorizing statute is the only way to do that.
A multitude of independent bodies, Congressional
committees, the GAO, the National Academy of Science, and
virtually all the public officials who have led these agencies
and been asked about it after they have left government give
you the same response I have.
Senator Durbin. If I might interrupt for a second? The
reason why the staffer is looking so nervous, as she is, is
because I have 2 minutes left to vote. And I want to give you a
chance to conclude. Are you near the end here?
Ms. Foreman. I am.
Senator Durbin. OK, fine, thank you.
Ms. Foreman. The change can be accomplished in a phased
manner that ensures an orderly transition. Talented and
committed public servants can make this work if you tell them
to make it work. They cannot make the present system work.
The American people deserve a better, more effective
system, Congress can start down that road by passing the Safe
Food Act, S. 1281.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Thanks, everybody. I am going to call a recess here for a
few minutes as I run off to vote. And you are welcome to snack,
if you would like, and I will be right back.
[Recess.]
Senator Durbin. I apologize for leaving but it is beyond my
control. And I, again, apologize to Carol Tucker Foreman for
interrupting you. Perhaps it gave more dramatic impact to your
closing. [Laughter.]
Dr. Henney, when I use the term, virtual reality, what does
that mean to you?
Dr. Henney. I do not have a lot of psychiatric training,
but I would say, what does it mean to you? [Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Perfect answer.
My concept of virtual reality is this new technology where
you put on this helmet and you feel like you are somewhere that
you are not, that you are doing things that you are not doing.
And that is why I was stunned when I received a letter, which I
am going to make a part of the record--from two people I
consider close friends and one I respect and do not know as
well--Secretary Donna Shalala, Secretary Dan Glickman, and Neal
Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter referred to appears in the Appendix on page 130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote them a letter and asked them to respond to the
National Academy of Sciences report, what the Food Safety
Council had to say about fully integrating the food safety
system in the United States. And I would like to read to you
what they said as a group--I know these letters go through 85
different iterations and 85 different offices:
``Under the direction of the President's Food Safety
Council we are rapidly moving toward creation of a virtual
national food safety agency that provides a single voice on
food safety issues. These efforts have resulted in Federal food
safety agencies working as one, complementing one's efforts.
Clearly, however, more work lies ahead to enhance and improve
our achievements.''
I am still wrestling with this virtual food agency. I want
to deal in the real world here of a single food agency rather
than a virtual reality. And as I listen to Dr. Woteki and Dr.
Henney, I admire your efforts because you not only have an
important mission, in this respect, the safety of food, you
have an almost impossible assignment, to try to juggle all
these agencies into one operation.
And it appears that the Food Safety Council is playing the
role of a summit conference, bringing together all these
different Federal agencies providing Esperanto texts and things
so they can speak to one another and understand. And it strikes
me that this memorandum of understanding which was issued in
February of this year, between the Food Safety Inspection
Service and the Food and Drug Administration is a lot like the
Middle East peace accord. We finally have these two agencies
willing to work.
Can you step back for a second? Can you say, let me think
not as someone in government, but as someone outside
government, that the thing you are proudest of is you have
everyone speaking to one another? That you have people talking
to one another?
It strikes me as impossible to defend to families across
America that this is good government. It strikes me that you
are doing the best you can with a terrible situation. How many
different agencies dealing with one food product? Either beef
ravioli should not be inspected every day or cheese ravioli
should not be inspected once a decade. Something is wrong here.
Somebody has got it wrong.
What I am suggesting is could we get together and talk?
Could we try to deal with one agency here? You know what
happened with the egg situation. We had that at the last
hearing. We said to these agencies, tell us, here is the
question. What temperature should we keep eggs at to keep them
safe?
Now, I am not a scientist. Cooked a lot of eggs, but I am
not a scientist. And we said, work on this. Come up with it.
How many years did it take the FDA? Eight years to come up with
the answer to that question. And then they handed it over to
the USDA to do their part of the calculation.
That is what is driving me crazy. And I think most of the
people who watch this think, surely they are not defending
this. This long lead time, this bureaucratic tangle that we
have created when it comes to food safety inspection. I will
repeat what I said at the outset. I really do trust both of
you. I think you really do have the best of intentions in what
you are trying to do and you have done your best. You are good
professionals. But how--I mean step back for a second. Do you
really think this is the most efficient way for us to inspect
food in America?
Dr. Henney.
Dr. Henney. Well, Senator Durbin, you have raised a number
of points. I think that we tried to outline in our testimony
that where we come from on this is basically outlined for us in
the laws and the jurisdiction that Congress provided to each of
our agencies or the other agencies of government. I think when
it comes to looking at ways in which we can make those function
effectively, we have made, I would say, great strides in the
last 3 to 4 years of getting this to be much better integrated,
much better coordinated----
Senator Durbin. Can we address that----
Dr. Henney [continuing]. As it needs to be. But I think
that to the issue of jurisdiction, at an operational level that
is why we have some of these memorandums of understanding. Our
jurisdiction is very clear to us. It is how we work out in the
field that we have had to have many discussions between and
among ourselves as to how we can do that.
Senator Durbin. There was a TV show, and I cannot remember
which one, and the fellow used to get up and say, the Devil
made me do it. And I do not know how long ago that was. And I
have heard so many witnesses say, Congress made me do it. Do
not blame us. Do not blame us about all these different laws
and 10 years and one daily inspection, Congress made us do
that.
And, you are right. Congress did make you do a lot of these
things. Congress came up with these crazy ideas that do not
mesh and do not make sense. I am talking about something
fundamental--changing the law. And I cannot get over how
professionals in this business are resisting efforts to change
the law and get out of this crazy quilt of jurisdiction into
something that makes sense.
So, I applaud you for taking this mish-mash of law that we
have handed you and trying to make something good of it. Thank
you.
But let us get beyond that discussion for a second. What
should we do? What should the law say? As a medical
professional, would it not make more sense to have one agency
driven by science in a coordinated effort, a new law, a new way
of looking at things?
Dr. Henney. I think that the--I will come back to something
that Dr. Woteki said. And that is what we are driving toward
are the best public health outcomes. We are looking within the
context of the strategic planning group that we have. One of
the things that we are specifically looking at is the laws that
undergird all of our operations, where we have gaps or possible
overlap. And looking at the different models that might make us
more effective.
I think that we have much to be proud of. There is clearly
much that we can do and each one of these models that is
suggested, whether it is total independence, consolidation or
better integration, all have both merits and draw backs. And
that is something that we are undertaking this year to really
clarify for ourselves and the thing that we have been charged
with doing is making recommendations to the council and to the
President about that matter.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Woteki, if you had to draw up that
model, with your goal public health and well-being, would it
look like the current system?
Ms. Woteki. No. It would not look like the current system.
Senator Durbin. Why?
Ms. Woteki. Well, we explained in our written testimony.
There are historical roots as to why this system has evolved to
what it is today and why there are the separation of
responsibilities that there are. But I do think that the report
that the academy made that you referred to in your opening
remarks and that I did as well actually did give some very
serious consideration to what structurally might be a better
replacement for what we have. And they came up with four
different approaches and said that those four might not be the
whole constellation either.
One of them is an independent agency, as you have proposed.
But the other three would be a lead agency, nesting those
responsibilities within one department, or the creation of a
council. So, the academy report, itself, says that there are a
variety of different means by which you could achieve that
effective system and among the things, as Dr. Henney said, that
we are doing is looking at that range of ideas in addition to
some other ones that have come up through the public meetings
that we have had. And, essentially are going to be working
through the pros and cons.
Senator Durbin. But do you not see that as you step back
and look at your best efforts now and those of your
predecessors that when the point that was made, and I think by
Mr. Dyckman earlier, about imported food, it is just impossible
for me to explain to people why your agency feels that the
safest thing for American consumers is for us to inspect the
plants in the country of origin and the Food and Drug
Administration says, no, the safest way to deal with it is
inspect the product as it arrives in the United States.
And it is a totally different approach. Scientifically,
should we not be able to coordinate those? I mean clearly the
food products involved are so similar, you cannot say, well, it
makes more sense in one area but not in others. Should we not
be able to at least come to a common ground, a common solution
as to what the best scientific answer is to that question?
Ms. Woteki. Certainly the administration agrees that we
have to have a better approach towards the safety of imported
food. One of the things that for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service has been very important has been the legislative
authorities that permit that system of equivalency, that
require us for imported meat and poultry products to make sure
that the country exporting to us has an equivalent system and
permits us to do those inspections overseas.
FDA has been seeking similar authorities and perhaps Dr.
Henney would like to expand on that.
Senator Durbin. Sure, please.
Dr. Henney. Thank you.
I think that, yes, we have on many occasions over the
course of the years sought additional authority in this area. I
think that the President last month also called on us to, in
the wake of no active legislation in this area, asked that we
work closely with Customs to use any administrative tools at
our disposal to look at how we could focus on the imported food
issue in a stronger way. And we will be doing that. But this,
again, is something where, as I think as Dr. Woteki points out,
we would also need to be working with you and Congress about
the needed statutory authorities that are really not present
for us at the current date.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you this. One of the things that
seems clear is that there is a lot of communication among the
different Federal food safety inspection agencies. How many
inter-agency coordination meetings on food safety are held each
week?
Does anybody know?
Dr. Henney. Let me just give you a few examples. I know
that we held the strategic planning meeting, the Task Force,
weekly, and we would be doing that this afternoon. I think
between the Center for Foods, which is the lead agency for food
safety out of the FDA, and the FSIS service, the lead officials
there meet on almost a weekly basis.
We have strong interaction. I think, as we look at our
other colleagues at CDC and EPA, in fact, we have a person from
CDC who now has been located with us and we have sent a person
down there. So, that there are, yes, there are many meetings
weekly if not daily.
Senator Durbin. That raises the obvious question. Would it
not be better if we had fewer meetings and more enforcement?
Would it not be better if we had one set of rules,
scientifically based, that all of the agencies or a single
agency was attempting to enforce? Would the consumers be better
off if there was less time spent by people working in food
safety at agencies trying to piece together all these different
standards and all these different approaches?
Mr. Dyckman, would you like to respond to that?
Mr. Dyckman. Well, clearly, it would be better to have more
enforcement. I guess from the efficiency standpoint regardless
of whether this is food safety, aviation safety, environmental
safety, I think that the track record will show that when you
have an independent, unified agency that has responsibilities
the better off you are. Now, of course, EPA is not perfect, but
they do not have unified legislation. And we have done lots of
audit reports on EPA and have recommended that. But at least
all the environmental laws or most of them are housed at one
agency, it is a lot easier to coordinate and communicate.
I wanted to address one other point. If I may take the
liberty. I attended one of the strategic planning meetings, the
open meeting that the President's Food and Safety Council had a
few weeks ago and one of their goals is to create a national
and to the extent possible, a international seamless food
safety system from farm to table. And I believe the meeting was
to address how to organize or reorganize the Federal food
safety system.
And quite frankly, I was disappointed that I did not even
see on the table the option of consolidating all Federal
agencies. There were proposals to make it more seamless, to
better coordinate. But as we have heard today there were four
options in the National Academy of Science report including a
single food safety agency. But that fourth option which is a
consolidated, unified single agency was not addressed.
Senator Durbin. If I could go back then. Let me ask, there
was a suggestion, I believe it was in Dr. Woteki's testimony,
that we are approaching this effort seriously and expeditiously
and considering the full range of options. Does that include a
single food agency?
Ms. Woteki. Most definitely. We are considering all of the
recommendations that were made by the academy report as well as
the recommendations that are coming forward from these various
meetings that we have had.
Senator Durbin. Because Mr. Dyckman said it was not brought
up.
Mr. Dyckman. Yes. I attended part of that and John
Nicholson, sitting behind me, attended the whole day and we
discussed it when he came back. And while we have heard
officials say that is one of the options at the working session
to get public input, it was not offered up on the table as a
possible option, and it really surprised us.
Senator Durbin. Carol Tucker Foreman, you have been on the
inside, on the outside, and you addressed what you would have
to just characterize as the politics of this situation here.
Why are we running into this resistance? Now, people who are
recognized professionals in the field and have to know in their
heart of hearts that this is not the way to run a railroad. Why
then do we have an administration which prides itself on food
safety and is unwilling to move forward with the concept of
this independent single agency?
Ms. Foreman. Could I say one other thing before I answer
that?
Senator Durbin. Sure, of course.
Ms. Foreman. Not only is the unified agency not part of the
discussion but at the public meeting a number of people
suggested that it should be and at the end of the meeting the
two Secretaries went out, met with the media and said, we do
not want a single food safety agency. It would be disruptive.
Boy, you bet it would. It would disrupt this nice little club.
It would make people's lives change. And I think out of that
would come better food safety.
There is a wonderful guy at OMB years ago who said, in
Washington where you stand depends upon where you sit and turf
is the ultimate determiner of what your position is. These are
people who are committed, but every statement that Dr. Henney
made comes qualified with, we want to do these things but only
with the structure that we have now.
We want better health, we want better science, but only
with the structure that we have now. You cannot change the
structure. It is the iron law of Washington.
Senator Durbin. Well, let me address one specific concern
that is legitimate, that would have to be resolved here. And
that is the difference in responsibility between a public
health agency, like the Food and Drug Administration, and an
agency like the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which combines
many different things relative to agriculture. In addition to
promoting products, they are inspecting products.
Certainly FSIS has a health component to it, but it is a
much different agency by mission. Is that part of the friction
here? Is that part of the tension that we run into when we talk
about a single agency?
Ms. Foreman. I do not think so. First, let me point out
that Congress, by creating the Under Secretary for Food Safety
began to address the conflict between USDA's different
missions. The Under Secretary for Food Safety has only one
responsibility, to protect public health. FSIS does not have to
balance safety and marketing. Incidentally, I might point out,
this is the highest ranking food safety officer in the U.S.
Government by act of Congress. You still have to compete within
the department.
On the other hand, FDA is required to accommodate the food
industry, to encourage the food industry, and to encourage
international trade. So, FDA has to balanced interests. If you
want the best for food safety, the best for the American
people, stop this virtual stuff, take these two agencies and
put them together under a leader who does not have to go up the
line to a Secretary.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Henney, let us go right to that point.
Is that one of your concerns that if you move this out of
the FDA, that it would compromise what you consider to be a
central responsibility when it comes to public health? That it
might go to an agency, a new one, an existing one which does
not share that same public health commitment?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, I have not foreclosed
conclusions here. I think that if you look at the issue that we
are both driving for, both the reorganization that was done at
USDA and within our own organization, public health is the
bottom line. We come from that at the FDA from a variety of
standpoints. Our history is in public health, what we have
always done is always geared at the public health. We are a
science-based regulatory agency that has a very long and proud
history in this regard and we are also advantaged, we believe,
by our sister agencies within the health department such as CDC
and NIH and the like.
I think that the working relationship that we have with the
Agriculture Department for the other commodities that they
regulate and the recent accommodation that was made in terms of
public health being under the purview of the Under Secretary
did separate that issue that had been present before in terms
of marketing and public health.
But we feel proud, quite frankly, of the fact that our
whole history has really been driven by this issue and will
remain that.
Senator Durbin. Well, Dr. Woteki, I would like you to have
a chance to respond to this as well. This is something that is
often--this is the bottom line here. The turf battle goes over
a lot of different aspects but one of the most basic is whether
or not your agency, the Department of Agriculture, for example,
could even take on this responsibility if it were given the
entire food safety responsibility, because of some of the
internal conflicts which have been written about over the
years.
What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Woteki. Well, I think that the greatest gains we are
going to make in the future with respect to food safety are
going to be ones that are premised on prevention. Techniques
that we can put into place at the farm level as well as during
processing and through the retail and preparation areas.
The greatest gains though I think are really going to come
in the prevention on-farm as well as in the processing areas.
And those are going to require an enormous amount of further
scientific research to develop the new technologies that can be
applied, that are going to be cost-effective, and that will
continue to deliver to the American consumer a high quality and
safer food product.
Senator Durbin. But the basic bottom line--I am sorry.
Ms. Woteki. So, our whole approach that has guided what the
Department of Agriculture has been doing for meat and poultry
and egg product inspection and also that is guiding now the
President's food safety initiative is this farm to table
approach with a heavy emphasis on R&D as well as the adoption
of science-based approaches in our regulatory systems.
Senator Durbin. I guess the bottom line question though, is
can your agency promote a product as well as oversee it,
inspect it and do it with credibility?
Ms. Woteki. Well, I think you can look to our record of the
last 5 years, since the reorganization. And the answer to that
is, yes. We have implemented this new science-based HACCP
approach in meat and poultry. We have seen a very high
compliance rate in the industry and recent data from CDC has
indicated that there is a dramatic decrease in salmonellosis
that parallels the declines that we are seeing through our own
performance testing on products. That has been done. There has
been a high rate of industry compliance and it has been quite
successful.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Dyckman, you noted that several
countries have started wrestling with this question on their
own and have come to different conclusions on it, if I
understood your testimony. It was a situation in England and
Ireland that they move toward more of a public health
orientation and if not, if I do not remember correctly, Canada
and Denmark moved more toward the agricultural side of it.
Could you explain, if you have it there or if you know,
what drove those decisions? I know the mad cow outbreak and
other things were issues in England.
Mr. Dyckman. Well, it was obviously, distrust in England
and Ireland for Federal regulators that dealt with food safety.
And, so, they chose to place their responsibilities in a health
oriented agency, that is under the Health Ministers. It was
less of a concern for the other two countries. They were more
concerned with economy and efficiency.
If I might return to your question that you asked the other
two witnesses. GAO places a lot of emphasis on integrity and
accountability. Integrity composes many aspects and it includes
many things. One of them is clearly an appearance of a conflict
of interest and I think you alluded to that today.
There are questions, legitimate questions about whether or
not an agency that promotes an industry should also regulate
parts of that industry, even if there is a firewall. And I
think Agriculture has a firewall. But still there are
questions. Questions to the extent that if we were to start
from scratch, we would avoid the appearance of conflicting
interests.
Accountability is another important issue in government,
not just in food safety but all aspects of government. The U.S.
taxpayer has the right to demand answers from one official who
could represent an issue or set of issues. We do not have that
in food safety right now. It is spread across various agencies
as we have discussed today. And that is why there is such an
effort to coordinate.
Now, obviously, even if you put all food safety
responsibilities or many of them in one agency there still
would be a need to coordinate but at least you would be able to
go to one agency official, to have one person testifying today
on food safety representing the administration and would be
able to say ``yes,'' I can make that change or explain the
reason for not making that change.
You would not have to go to several different agencies.
Senator Durbin. I think that is the bottom line and the
reason why, obviously, I am pushing for the idea that I believe
in. But I also have the highest respect for all who have
testified today who may see things differently. And I repeat
what I said at the outset, I believe you are all professionals.
I think you are doing the very best in terms of food safety
for this country. I just think we can do it better and I hope
that perhaps your testimony today and this hearing will cause
some within the administration to understand that what I have
in mind is not disruptive but, in fact, will create a more
efficient approach. And I thank the panel very much for your
testimony.
Dr. Henney. Thank you.
Ms. Woteki. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. The next panel that we have includes Nancy
Donley of Chicago, President of Safe Tables Our Priority;
Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director of the Food Safety Programs for
The Center for Science in the Public Interest; Dr. Rhona
Applebaum, Executive Vice President for Scientific and
Regulatory Affairs of the National Food Processors Association;
and Dr. Stacey Zawel, Vice President for Scientific and
Regulatory Policy for the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
So, Nancy, if you are prepared, if you would lead off and
then we will allow the others to join in.
Thank you for being here.
TESTIMONY OF NANCY DONLEY,\1\ PRESIDENT, S.T.O.P., SAFE TABLES
OUR PRIORITY
Ms. Donley. Thank you, Senator Durbin for inviting me here
today and thank you for your years and ongoing many, many more,
I hope, in leading such good efforts in food safety. It has not
gone unnoticed. The American public thanks you for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Donley appears in the Appendix on
page 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was invited to testify here today on a subject that has
become the single most important issue in my life and that is
food safety. Until July 18, 1993, food safety was a non-issue
as far as I was concerned. I did what most of the public does,
I assumed that the food we fed our families was safe. I assumed
that our government had the situation of ensuring the safest
food safety possible well in hand. I assumed that the food
industry was governed under the strictest of regulations to
produce food of the highest safety level possible. I assumed
that companies violating food safety law were dealt with
swiftly and harshly. I assumed that there was an entity
ultimately responsible for protecting my family from unsafe
food. I assumed wrong on all counts, dead wrong.
On July 18, 1993, my only child, my 6-year old son, Alex,
died a brutally painful death after eating E.coli, 0157:H7
contaminated hamburger. Alex wanted to be a paramedic when he
grew up so that he could help people. So, when he died, we
wanted to donate Alex's organs to fulfill his wish in helping
others. We were told we could not. The toxins produced by
E.coli 0157:H7 had destroyed his internal organs and they had
liquified portions of his brain.
My son suffered horribly and I still suffer and grieve
every day, 6 years later and I will for the rest of my life.
And this happens to millions of people every single year.
After Alex's death I joined S.T.O.P., Safe Tables Our
Priority. S.T.O.P. is a national nonprofit foodborne illness
victims organization that was founded in the wake of the Jack-
in-the-Box E.coli 0157:H7 epidemic in 1993 that killed 4
children and sickened over 700. Our founders include parents of
children who died or were seriously injured from eating
contaminated meat.
Since then our membership has expanded to include people
impacted by many different foodborne pathogens from all food
groups. Our mission is to prevent unnecessary illness and death
from foodborne pathogens.
When I learned that Alex had died because his hamburger was
contaminated with cattle feces, I was determined to understand
where the system had failed and it has been an incredibly eye-
opening experience for me. S.T.O.P.'s initial focus was on
fixing the E.coli 0157:H7 problem, a problem then thought to be
confined to beef. I learned that at the time of Alex's death
meat inspection did not include any measures to address
microbial contamination. So, I worked extensively during the
rule making process for FSIS's pathogen, hazard analysis and
critical control point regulation which mandated microbial
testing for the first time in history.
Also, during this time, E.coli 0157:H7 was declared an
adulterant in ground beef and safe food handling labels were
required for all raw meat and poultry products sold at retail.
Things were definitely looking up in the hamburger disease
fight as E.coli 0157:H7 was commonly referred to. But then we
learned that E.coli 0157:H7 is not just a hamburger problem.
The primary reservoir of 0157:H7 is found in cattle and the
first incidence and outbreaks of E.coli poisoning were found in
ground beef. But outbreaks have subsequently been linked to
such diverse foods as lettuce, sprouts, cantaloupe and apple
juice. Japan had a national epidemic that infected over 10,000
people with contaminated radish sprouts being the suspected
vehicle.
Several months ago school children in Europe became sick
from E.coli 0157:H7 contaminated goat cheese and E.coli 0157:H7
outbreaks have been linked to contaminated drinking water and
in my home State of Illinois, children became very sick after
swimming in a contaminated reservoir.
This single pathogen, which is why I went through this
list, affects products that is regulated by the FDA, FSIS and
EPA. So, while FSIS was dealing with the problem in meat,
prevention strategies were not put in place for other products
that could be affected by the same pathogen and that was
because no one was looking at the overall big picture.
There appears to be a dangerous tunnel vision occurring
within the individual agencies where they focus only on their
small world and do not see how happenings in other areas might
be of relevance to their own.
The invitation to this hearing contained the following
questions: One, if the Federal Government were to create a food
safety system from scratch, would it resemble the current
system? And, two, is this the best and most logical
organization for Federal food safety agencies?
If the Federal Government were to create a food safety
system from scratch I cannot imagine it creating the fragmented
system that exists today. The reason that it is so hodge-podge
is that it was never planned. It just evolved into what it is
today. Food safety was not the concern historically that it is
today. Rather quality and labeling issues were the driving
forces.
So, consolidating food safety activities into a single
independent agency would elevate food safety, prevent
duplication, and fill-in gaps that currently exist in our
multiple-agency system. A single independent agency would be
better prepared to handle emerging food safety issues. It would
be more efficient, more effective, and more responsive.
The current structures of agencies within even larger
departments undermines the importance of food safety because
these departments have such broad and diverse agendas, but food
safety always gets very--very often can get overlooked or does
not receive the attention it deserves.
FSIS is a subset of the USDA, a huge department, whose
responsibilities include everything from forestry to circus
animals. It is even more complex with CFSAN, a subset of the
FDA, which is a subset of HHS. When you are such a tiny piece
of the pie you do not command much attention. And food safety
deserves to be the entire pie.
It is time to face the fact that the current system of
multiple agencies regulating food safety is simply not working.
Victims are falling through the cracks because of the lack of a
single cohesive food safety program. Imagine what might have
happened if a single food agency had been implemented
immediately following the Jack-in-the-Box epidemic. A single
independent entity responsible for all foods including meat
would have looked at the animal reservoir pathogens in a larger
context. While developing a program to address the animal
pathogens in meat, it would have logically and simultaneously
looked at the potential of animal waste contaminating other
foods as well and developed prevention strategies.
These produce-related foodborne illness outbreaks might
have been avoided all together. Our organization has members
who were victims of the juice and lettuce outbreaks who
question why did not government anticipate such a problem
occurring? They want to know who was in charge of the safety of
the food that made their loved ones sick? The answer is,
tragically, a dual one. There were too many in charge and yet
no one in charge.
We strongly support the implementation of a single
independent food safety agency. The safety of the food we feed
our families is of critical importance and deserves the
uncompromised scrutiny and attention of an agency unencumbered
with other conflicting responsibilities such as trade and
marketing issues.
Now, many industry associations support the status quo of
the marketers.
Senator Voinovich [presiding].
Ms. Donley, your time is almost up.
Ms. Donley. Oh, I am sorry.
In conclusion, we oppose such an arrangement to have
conflicting agendas within agency. So, I would just like to say
that it is time to acknowledge that we are beyond fixing the
current situation and we really hope that turf wars will be set
aside and just focus on protecting the common people. That is
what we count on government to do.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Ms. DeWaal.
TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE SMITH DeWAAL,\1\ DIRECTOR, FOOD SAFETY
PROGRAMS, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Ms. DeWaal. Thank you very much and I want to thank Senator
Durbin for his tremendous leadership and Senator Voinovich for
your willingness to look at this question. I am Caroline Smith
DeWaal. I am Director of Food Safety Programs for The Center
for Science in the Public Interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. DeWaal appears in the Appendix on
page 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSPI is a nonprofit organization based in Washington and we
have been working for over 25 years to help improve the public
health largely through our work on nutrition and food safety
issues. We are supported by over a million subscribers to our
Nutrition Action Health Letter. Food safety experts believe
that contaminated food causes up to 81 million illnesses and
9,000 deaths each year.
While these estimates illuminate the magnitude of the
problem, for many consumers these aggregate numbers mean less
than the specific outbreaks and recalls, such as the Jack-in-
the-Box outbreak, the outbreak from Odwalla juice, the Hudson
Food recall where millions of pounds of ground beef were
recalled or the most recent Bil Mar outbreak linked to listeria
in processed meat products.
These well-publicized cases have awakened consumers to the
fact that contaminated food is a greater risk than we thought.
Food contamination problems are cropping up in such health
foods as apple cider and alfalfa sprouts to such traditional
favorites as hamburgers and hot dogs. It is hard to know any
more what is safe to serve your kids or your aging parents.
CSPI has been collecting data on foodborne illness
outbreaks for several years. Today we are releasing an updated
version of this data in a report called, Outbreak Alert:
Closing the Gaps in Our Federal Food Safety Net. In this
listing of over 350 outbreaks FDA regulated foods were
identified in three out of four of the foodborne illness
outbreaks.
Yet, FDA receives roughly one out of every four dollars
appropriated for food safety regulation. This disparity is only
one of many created by our current system, which spreads
responsibility for food safety among numerous Federal agencies.
Senator Voinovich asked us to address the following
questions. If the Federal Government were to create a food
safety system from scratch, would it resemble the current
system and is this the best and most logical organization for
the Federal food safety agencies?
The answer to both of those questions is a resounding, no.
It makes no sense when food safety problems fall through the
cracks of agency jurisdiction. It makes no sense when multiple
Federal agencies fail to address glaring public health
problems. It makes no sense to have a single food processing
plant get two different, entirely different food safety
inspections while other plants get no Federal inspection at
all.
It makes no sense that the widely touted HACCP program is
markedly different at the Food and Drug Administration and at
the Food Safety and Inspection Service. It makes no sense that
new food safety technologies face multiple hurdles at various
agencies before they can benefit consumers.
It makes no sense that the United States inspects imported
food differently depending on which regulatory agency is in
charge. Quite simply, the current food safety system makes no
sense for today's consumers.
CSPI documented these problems last year for the National
Academy of Sciences panel that wrote ``Ensuring Safe Food from
Production to Consumption.'' This year we have documented even
more problems.
For example, for State laboratories there are no minimum
testing requirements when they are checking food. They actually
have to run different testing protocols depending on which
agency they are running the test for. This means that
contaminated food recalls and outbreak announcements can be
delayed for several days while Federal agencies retest products
to confirm the findings of the State laboratories.
Another example is genetically modified plant species.
These are subject to a mandatory review at our APHIS, our
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, to ensure plant
health and safety. But only a voluntary review at the Food and
Drug Administration to ensure human health.
The agencies want us to believe that they can coordinate
their way out of these problems. It is true that the Clinton
Administration has worked hard to address many pressing food
safety problems. Despite their best efforts, however,
coordination will never provide the whole solution. While a
joint FDA-FSIS egg safety task force has been meeting for
years, neither agency has proposed on-farm controls for
Salmonella that infects eggs.
In addition, a memorandum of understanding between FSIS and
FDA on inspection issues failed to net any meaningful change
because USDA is statutorily limited to conducting only meat and
poultry inspections. These examples show that coordination
cannot ultimately address many of the problems with the current
system.
In Vermont, where I grew up, there is a joke a city slicker
who asks directions from an old Vermont farmer. The punch line
is, you cannot get there from here. Today we all want the
safest possible food supply. But like that old Yankee farmer, I
am afraid that you cannot get there from here. That is why CSPI
strongly supports the Safe Food Act of 1999.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Dr. Applebaum.
TESTIMONY OF RHONA APPLEBAUM,\1\ Ph.D., EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FOOD
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Applebaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Applebaum appears in the Appendix
on page 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Rhona Applebaum and I serve as the Executive
Vice President for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs for the
National Food Processors Association.
NFPA appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on the
organizational structure of our Nation's food safety system.
Because our primary mission is food science and food safety, we
have a very direct interest in providing input on this
proposal.
In the few minutes I have this morning, I will briefly
address the effectiveness of our current food safety system and
some of the challenges to public health that system faces as
well as why we believe a single food safety agency is not
necessary to meet those challenges.
While NFPA does not endorse S. 1281, the Safe Food Act of
1999, we commend its author, Senator Durbin, for his
legislation's goal of enhancing food safety, an objective
shared by the food industry.
Our means to the end is where we differ. Our approach
embraces a single food safety policy not a single food safety
agency. If the Federal Government were to start from scratch to
establish a food safety regulatory system would it resemble the
current system? Probably not. But then numerous other
government agencies, whose missions parallel and/or compete
with one another might also look differently with the benefit
of a clean slate.
We should be mindful that our existing food safety system
has evolved over many decades and enjoys the confidence of the
overwhelming majority of the American public. In short, the
system works and it continues to evolve toward an even more
effective system in the future.
Rather than focusing our efforts on creating a new agency,
our energies would be of greater benefit if we focus on
enhancing the strengths of the existing system. The current
regulatory framework in the United States, with shared
oversight of food safety by FDA, USDA, and several other
agencies, has resulted in Americans enjoying one of the safest
food supplies in the world.
So, while there may be ways to improve the current system,
it is not accurate to say categorically that the system is
broken and needs to be replaced.
There are two primary reasons why our current system works
well. The first is that safety is the food industry's No. 1
concern, our principal focus. Safety is job one, as the saying
goes.
Second, the current food safety system is largely based on
sound science and a mutual commitment to food safety by both
food companies and all agencies involved in their regulation.
But can the system be improved? Absolutely.
Our plea is to work together to enhance not demolish the
existing framework. NFPA believes that it is unnecessary to
have a single food agency to improve the system. Three goals
should be considered when discussing improvements to our
current system.
These include, first, better coordination among various
Federal, State and local government agencies. Second, a single
scientifically based Federal food safety policy which ensures
uniform and consistent food safety guidelines and requirements.
Third, and of extreme importance, is that sound objective
science must be the basis for any changes and improvements to
our food safety system. This view is endorsed by both the
National Academy of Sciences and the President's Council on
Food Safety.
Sound science must be the tool used in determining the
allocation of resources in the food safety regulatory
framework.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, NFPA believes that incorporating
better agency coordination and more consumer education along
with increased surveillance and better agency resource
allocation in terms of risk assessment to consumers will go a
long way to enhance the safety of the U.S. food supply and work
is underway to see these actions realized.
NFPA recommends that Congress examine the recommendations
of the National Academy of Sciences and the changes being
designed and implemented by the President's Food Safety Council
before considering such drastic measures as the creation of a
whole new government bureaucracy.
As stated in our written comments, our system is not so
flawed that it needs to be razed. It simply needs an upgrade
and some remodeling.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony to this Subcommittee and welcome any
questions you or other Members may have.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Dr. Zawel.
TESTIMONY OF STACEY ZAWEL,\1\ Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY POLICY, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF
AMERICA
Ms. Zawel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Durbin for
the opportunity to come before you today to talk about this
very important issue. As you know, my name is Stacey Zawel, and
I am Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Policy for the
Grocery Manufacturers of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Zawel appears in the Appendix on
page 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And like I said, I definitely welcome the opportunity to
come to talk to you and recommend ways to refine but not
replace our Nation's food safety system. If we were starting
from the beginning and had the luxury of creating a food safety
system from scratch, GMA would recommend that the system be
based on four fundamental principles.
First, regulatory controls would rest on science-based
assessments of risk, not speculative hazards. Second, education
about proper methods of food handling and preparation would be
provided at all stages of the food chain.
Third, adequate staffing and resources would be provided to
administer this food safety system. And, fourth, industry and
all sectors of government would pledge to work together in a
coordinated manner to maximize food protection.
But the fact of the matter is we are not starting from
scratch. We already have a food safety system in place. Critics
argue that it is fatally flawed by a lack of coordination among
the responsible agencies and senseless duplicative effort. They
are wrong. The existing system is a successful partnership
among government, industry and consumers, the diversity of the
regulatory players adds a breadth and a depth of experience
that is crucial in addressing the multi-faceted nature of the
food safety challenge.
The President's Council on Food Safety, which includes
Secretary Shalala and Secretary Glickman, is working on a
strategic food safety plan that will focus on enhancing
cooperation among the responsible Federal agencies. Planned
measures include a unified food safety budget and a single
research plan. In the face of this commitment to enhance
coordination at the highest levels of government, it is simply
ludicrous to suggest that the present food safety system must
be entirely scrapped.
We need to work with the successful system we have, giving
the Council on Food Safety time to make the adjustments
necessary to perfect it. Any other course would be enormously
disruptive and very expensive.
GMA believes, therefore, that the question we should be
asking today is not necessarily how can we build a food safety
system from scratch but how can we assist the Council on Food
Safety in improving the one that we have?
GMA would suggest a renewed focus on the four basic
principles I discussed earlier. The first one being that the
food safety system must be based on science. Especially as food
production, processing and distribution increases in complexity
and sophistication, we must rely upon scientific techniques to
detect and address potential food safety hazards. We have to
identify and fight the true causes of foodborne illness with
the right scientific weapons and those weapons can only be
developed and refined through laboratory research and practical
testing.
We are starting to achieve some of the benefits a science-
based approach can bring and every effort should be made to
ensure that this direction continues. For example, new
techniques to reduce bacterial contamination such as
irradiation and certain chemical compounds are being developed
that offer encouraging results.
USDA's adoption of the hazard analysis critical control
point systems approach, a process control originally developed
and used voluntarily by the industry has the potential to
transform the antiquated meat and poultry inspection system
from one based on sight, smell and touch to one founded on
science-based assessments of risk. Although implementation
challenges abound this technique and others do show some
promise.
USDA, FDA, and other Federal agencies, working with the
States and industry, must continue their focus on the science
and research.
The second one is education and proper handling must be
promoted. The handling of foods at all stages of the farm to
table production chain affect safety. And everyone has a
responsibility for and must be educated with respect to the
proper and safe methods for handling food products.
Third, adequate resources are definitely needed and have to
be properly employed. Without properly trained personnel,
state-of-the-art equipment and the necessary funds an emphasis
on science and research is meaningless. Although FDA has
historically enjoyed respect throughout the world, the agency's
reputation is being threatened by a depletion of resources for
food safety.
Similarly, although FSIS is better funded, the agency's
labor-intensive is both costly and antiquated.
Fourth, Federal food safety agencies must also work
cooperatively. Coordination is a challenge in a food safety
system that draws upon these multiple disciplines, expertise,
and history of several executive agencies. But replacing the
successful system we have with a single agency is not a magic
bullet for enhancing food safety. Moving boxes around on the
government's organizational chart simply will not make food any
safer.
And in conclusion, what I think we need to do is focus on
the Council on Food Safety that has already created a
coordinated food safety system, united by a single budget and a
research plan that the proponents of S. 1281 are seeking.
Before embarking upon an expensive, disruptive reorganization,
we owe it to the American people to see if the Council's
strategic plan and related activities can address any
challenges that exist and move the country to a new level of
food safety and protection.
That concludes my remarks and thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
My impression is that the problem today in the country is a
lot more severe than it was, say, 25 or 30 years ago, in terms
of more food being processed and more people buying pre-
packaged things and the rest of it.
That is the first impression I have gotten from this
testimony. Second, that the diseases that are out there are a
little more rampant than they were in the past and are more
diversified than what we have encountered in the past.
When did the Council on Food Safety get organized? When
were they brought together to talk about looking at this, do
you know?
Ms. Applebaum. Approximately a year ago.
Senator Voinovich. A year ago. The President has been in
office 7 years. Go back and look at the studies about this
problem which is, by the way, like so many other problems in
the Federal Government. Just unbelievable. GAO report after GAO
report after GAO report says that this is something that should
be done and everyone says they are going to do something about
it, but it does not happen.
From what I can see from listening to this testimony, this
is all over the lot. Dr. Zawel, why is it that you think that
it would be terribly disruptive and cause all kinds of problems
and so forth? I agree with a lot of what you said. This should
be done, and this should be done, and this should be done. But,
you know something? It hasn't been done for a long time.
I know from my experience in government that when you have
people all over the lot, everybody has got to get coordinated.
We have, frankly, Senator Durbin, too many committees looking
at too many things, and you cannot coordinate. It is just mind-
boggling.
Dr. Applebaum, why don't you think it makes sense to take
this stuff, get it on the table, try to reorganize it and get
one agency and start from scratch and get the job done and do
it right?
I would think that industry would welcome it. You have one
group coming in, another group coming in. I was just talking to
the Ohio director of agriculture, and they are trying to get
the State organized because it is not as coordinated as it
ought to be.
I would like your comments.
Ms. Zawel. Well, let me just reflect some of what I said in
my statement which is that our, I guess, opposition to a single
food safety agency does not, at the same time, reflect that we
do not think there are problems with the current system. There
are some real challenges and that the system has been
developed, as Dr. Applebaum has said, through a long history of
events, which has brought us to where we are today. And, so, I
do not think that I will necessarily go to the mat and say,
every single aspect of today's current system is definitely
ideal. I think we definitely need increased coordination, and
all the other things that we called for.
What I think would be terribly disruptive is to just
decimate everything that we have, build brand-new
infrastructures and build brand-new agency with a single head.
I do not know. I am truly not convinced that that, in and of
itself, is going to result in all this food safety challenge
just going away.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one thought that I have had is
that if you are going to do this, I am not sure you would
create a whole new agency. I would probably determine what
agency is most involved in this area, perhaps the Department of
Agriculture, and say, they are the most into this and then try
to figure out how FDA could be folded into that. I would not
start with a brand-new infrastructure. I do not think that
would make the most sense, and would try to work out some
system of doing it that way.
Ms. Zawel. I think that with respect to coordination, which
I think is probably one of the biggest challenges that any
infrastructure has and certainly this one where we have
multiple agencies, it is a challenge to coordinate. But at the
same time if you look at any one organization, whether it is
Congress or whether it is one single company, there is always
challenges to coordinate. There are always going to be turf
battles. So, the key to necessarily decimating all the turf
battles is well--which I think is one of the biggest issues
that you guys have in recommending the agency and making it
more effective. I am not sure that that key is one agency, in
and of itself.
Senator Voinovich. I would add that it depends on where
these responsibilities are in an agency. I have been through
this as governor, and we formed cabinet councils to coordinate,
but the issues that we were coordinating had relative priority
in those agencies.
The issue is where does this particular matter fit into the
overall structure of an agency, and is it way down in Health
and Human Services, which has tremendous responsibility?
You just wonder how much attention does this particular
area get from that agency, and would it receive a lot more
attention if it were, say, located in the Department of
Agriculture?
Any other comments, Dr. Applebaum?
Ms. Applebaum. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could just make some
comments in regards to your observation. There seems to be, I
will use the term, an epidemic, if you will, that you relate to
foodborne disease. In that regard there is heightened
awareness. The public is more aware of the fact that there is
illness that can be conveyed through the food. So, there is a
heightened awareness and people are more aware of the fact that
there could be a food-related issue associated with the
disease.
And there are also more virulent organisms that we have to
be cognizant of. The organisms that we are dealing with today
are not the same ones we dealt with 25 or 50 years ago. But we
also must be cognizant of the fact that there are different
practices that we are following as consumers.
We are looking more and more towards less processed. We do
not necessarily cook our food like we did in the past. There
are differences in education that was done in the past than
that done currently.
So, there are a whole lot of factors involved in terms of
what is being implicated and blamed on, if you will, the
increases in illnesses. The food industry does not take even
one illness with any type of frivolity or look at it in a
trivial way. We are very much concerned with that and it is
very important.
I want to get back also to the second point that you raised
with Dr. Zawel; that is, Do you not think that the best way to
the end, the means to the end in this regard, is just to focus
everything on one particular agency? Let us have one body, one
entity, a body that we can go to and then we can get all these
things fixed.
I think we all share the common goal of enhancing and
improving the safety of our food supply. That is first and
foremost in NFPA's concern and the members that both Dr. Zawel
and I represent. The difference here is that we feel the
solution to this problem needs a plan first, and the plan we
view is a single food safety policy. Put the policy in place.
Then, in terms of whatever house it is in, that will come
later.
We are looking now in terms of the advancements that have
been done to date related to the NAS report as well as the
President's Food Safety Council. There have been advancements
made; even though they have only been in place for a year,
progress is being made.
We are looking at this, I am looking at this, our
association is looking at this in terms of the advancements
being made. Our food supply is not perfect, but there are
things that have to be done. Better coordination, better
integration, having everything based on sound science. But do
we pull back and stop the advancement when there is advancement
being made only to retract and take another direction that has
no justification? There is not any evidence as to whether or
not a single food safety entity is the best means to the end.
That is our basic difference in this regard. We would like
a plan. We would like the plan based on a single food safety
policy; then enact that policy. It is the policy that is going
to ensure the safety of the food supply, not a single entity,
not a single agency, in and of itself. Can there be
consolidation? Absolutely. Can there be consolidation of
current statutory authority? Absolutely.
We have been working on that for quite a long time. But to
just demolish a system that is working and working effectively
and is the model that the rest of the world is looking towards
in order to pattern themselves, we do not think makes a lot of
sense.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Yes, Ms. DeWaal.
Ms. DeWaal. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
I want to introduce, to pick up on another line that you
were talking about and that is the relationship with the State
Governments. I went to a meeting of the Association of Food and
Drug Officials and these are the State people who really spend
a lot of time regulating food. And they spent a lot of time
talking to me about their concerns about the current Federal
system.
The State lab example I have given you. They have four
different testing protocols depending on which Federal agency
they are preparing a food sample for.
In the area of outbreak investigation, the State will
initiate an outbreak investigation but until they know what
food is implicated, who do you call? And there is no ghost
busters here. There is no food busters. They cannot even call a
Federal agency, regulatory agency until they know whether it is
a USDA or an FDA regulated food.
In the area of State inspection there was a lot of concern
right now USDA and FDA are developing new systems. And I am
really encouraged that they are doing that to work more closely
with their State partners. So, if a State inspector goes into a
food plant you will not have a Federal inspector go in the next
day.
Well, the way they are doing this is with little laptop
computers that these State inspectors will carry around with
them and they will link-in electronically with the Federal
system.
Well, what if we have a laptop which is the USDA laptop and
a laptop which is the FDA laptop and then they still have got
their State laptops. There has to be a better system.
We have 50 States who work on food safety. Every State has
food safety responsibilities. And they are trying to link up
with these multiple Federal agencies and they are having a hard
time.
I just want to talk on the Department of Agriculture issue.
I understand that it is very appealing to think that you could
maybe house everything over at USDA. And I think there is a big
trust issue, though. And when President Nixon thought about
forming the Environmental Protection Agency there were
environmental functions spread out all over the Federal
Government. And many of them were at the Department of
Agriculture. But he decided that they needed, first of all, to
create a new infrastructure to get the right focus on
environmental protection and we have seen real results from
that.
And, second, he did, he formed the structure first. We just
heard from NFPA that they want the plan first and the structure
second. Well, that is not what happened when President Nixon
looked at it. He formed the structure first and then Congress
passed the laws that developed the plan. The Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, and many other laws which that agency now
enforces.
So, and in Canada, today, they are looking at more
gradually combining food safety functions but they formed the
structure, an independent inspection agency first and now they
are just getting around to changing the laws.
So, I think those are some things that you should think
about as you consider that. Forming a plan first may take us 10
years. I am not sure that we can afford that.
Senator Voinovich. Any other comments? I know that Senator
Durbin has some questions.
Ms. Donley. I would just like to, if I might, Senator
Voinovich, to your point of I wrote down here that it sounded
like you were suggesting perhaps to fold it into an existing
agency or department. And then you mentioned a point that I
brought up as well that there in HHS, for instance, you used
the example that it is so huge, it has so many responsibilities
that there is a lack of attention. And I say that that is also
the case in USDA.
But if we are really going to do something and really take
it the next step I think we should take it completely and make
the next step that, make the complete move. And give something
that is going to give the public confidence. The public is
concerned with what it views as a conflict of interest in
agencies that have marketing responsibilities and trade
responsibilities also being the regulators. And, therefore,
that is why we really see the need for this agency to be
independent.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. I would like to note that we have got a
vote. The buzzer is coming up.
Senator Durbin. That is good news for the panel.
[Laughter.]
Because I will try to wrap up very briefly.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Because I think after that we
probably should adjourn.
Senator Durbin. I will. I will just ask a few questions and
then we can both leave to vote or you can leave early if you
would like. It is your decision, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate all of you being
here and Nancy Donley, an old friend, thank you for reminding
us that this is a life and death issue because your family was
touched by that tragedy. And I have never forgotten the first
hand-written letter you sent me so many years ago which brought
my attention to this issue.
And I just want to say very briefly, I agree with you. I
think that we really have to think about the agency and its
responsibilities so the mission is clear and the people
understand what that mission is.
USDA, by virtue of numbers and responsibility, looks like
the obvious place to turn. But it does have some conflicting
responsibilities here, at least responsibilities that are not
necessarily complementary to a regulatory attitude. And that is
something that I would look at very carefully. As much as I
like the USDA, I would have to look at that very carefully.
FDA, a smaller part of the pie, one-fourth, I think when it
comes to the employees involved in it, has a major part of
their responsibility, as Caroline Smith DeWaal has said, with
three out of the four of the outbreaks coming through foods
that were inspected or should have been inspected by that
agency. And they certainly do not receive the money they
deserve for the important responsibilities that we send their
way.
I would like to say to the two witnesses that come from the
private side, because I only have a couple of minutes here,
rather than being discouraged or upset or angry or
confrontational I am encouraged by what you had to say. I do
not know if this is a conscious decision or maybe I am looking
for that pony on Christmas morning, but I really sense that
there is a change in attitude here and it is a good one and
more open-mindedness about this. And I do not disagree at all
with what you have said.
I mean it is really a chicken and egg, I guess it is a good
analogy here, as to whether we are going to start the structure
and then bring policy or start with policy and then bring
structure. My guess is we are going to end up at the same
place, either way.
Because once we sit down and try to explain to your
manufacturers and processors why we have an inspection of one
of these products every day and another one every 10 years, it
is going to come together when we say there is only one way to
decide this and that is science. Any other way is pure politics
or commercialism. It has to be science. What is the
scientifically defensible approach to this?
We are trying to sell that to Europe now so our products
have a chance. We are as inclined to hyperbolic rhetoric as
anybody on this side and I plead guilty. But we are not trying
to do anything drastic or demolish or disrupt.
I really think that if this is going to be done sensibly
that it is going to have to be a reasonable transition here. We
are bringing together a lot of ideas, a lot of science, a lot
of agencies, and a lot of players trying to make this thing
work better for American families. If we do not do it carefully
we could lose ground rather than gain ground.
So, more than anyone here as the champion of this cause, I
will tell you I am determined to make sure it is done right if
it is ever done at all. And that is not an overnight, super
agency, conceived and created by one piece of legislation. I do
not think it will ever happen that way, nor should it.
We should really think this thing through and make sure
when it is done that the change is for the better.
The last point I will make, and I will give you a couple of
minutes to respond if you would like, is I met with an
executive of a major company, and I will not go any further to
identify him, last year for breakfast. And he said, what are
you working on? And I said, food safety. And his company makes
a lot of food products. He laughed at me. Why are you doing
this? He said, we have the safest food supply in the world.
Cannot you find something better to do with your time?
And that kind of took me aback and I did not quarrel with
him, I respect him very much. And I said, well, I think it is
an important issue. It was not but weeks later that he got hit
with a major, multi-million dollar problem in this company
involving food safety. And he was on the phone to me talking
about food safety.
As confident as we are of the goodness of our food supply,
as much as we want to see it continue to be good, we know that
terrible things can happen and we want to do our best to avoid
them. And that is really what I am about here.
I do not think that there is strength in the diversity of
regulatory players, as has been said here, in one of the
testimonies. I really think we have too many different voices.
This Tower of Babel mentality where these coordinating meetings
are going on night and day to try to keep these agencies
working together. Would it not make a lot more sense to bring
them all under one roof, on a science-based, sound theory and
approach on food safety?
I hope it will.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to make one point before we
have to go vote on the agriculture bill.
We talked about the needs and so forth. But one of the big
areas that we need to be concerned about is exporting our
products. We are seeing more and more artificial barriers put
up to our products, saying they are not healthy or they are
this or they are that. I think that we need to be a lot more
authoritative and united in terms of the quality of our
products in terms of how to deal in the world market place.
Because they are going to find any excuse they can to keep us
out of that market place today.
So, it is just another ingredient that may not have been
around 25 or 30 years ago.
Senator Durbin. That is all I have.
Senator Voinovich. Any comments?
Senator Durbin. Rebuttal?
Ms. Zawel. I would just conclude and say that I think that
we have the same interests in mind in terms of assuring that we
have the utmost safest food supply in the United States and
obviously we would certainly encourage, as we have,
multinational companies that we represent, that that same
product is safe as it goes across the oceans. And, initially I
think Senator Durbin, you had said that you wished the industry
would stop resisting or Chairman Voinovich, I cannot remember
which one. And, I think that that is not necessarily, and I
hope you recognize, where we are at. We definitely want to work
towards ensuring and enhancing the food supply as much as we
possibly can further. But that we believe, with all due respect
to Caroline, that the plans and the policies that change and
affect that system to make it better are really what is key and
not necessarily the structure.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to finish with one remark.
I have a lot of confidence in the food industry that wants to
put out the best products it can. They want quality products.
They know that if they have problems that it is going to hurt
the business. I think that sometimes those of us in government
forget that the private sector is doing everything it possibly
can to make sure that there are healthy products out there.
Because they understand how important it is to the safety of
the public and also to their businesses.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]61665.130
-