[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
QUESTION: WHAT IS MORE SCRAMBLED THAN AN EGG? ANSWER: THE FEDERAL FOOD
INSPECTION SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-707 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DARRELL E. ISSA, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
------ ------ CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Ex Officio
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ron Martinson, Staff Director
Chris Barkley, Professional Staff Member
Reid Voss, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 17, 2005..................................... 1
Statement of:
Robinson, Robert A., Managing Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Robert
E. Brackett, Ph.D., Director, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration; Merle
Pierson, Ph.D., Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Jim Jones, Director of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Richard
V. Cano, Acting Director, Seafood Inspection Program,
National Marine Fisheries Service.......................... 3
Brackett, Robert E....................................... 36
Cano, Richard V.......................................... 87
Jones, Jim............................................... 79
Pierson, Merle........................................... 63
Robinson, Robert A....................................... 3
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brackett, Robert E., Ph.D., Director, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration,
prepared statement of...................................... 39
Cano, Richard V., Acting Director, Seafood Inspection
Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 89
DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut, prepared statement of................ 58
Jones, Jim, Director of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of..... 81
Pierson, Merle, Ph.D., Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of...... 65
Robinson, Robert A., Managing Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 7
QUESTION: WHAT IS MORE SCRAMBLED THAN AN EGG? ANSWER: THE FEDERAL FOOD
INSPECTION SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Porter, Norton, Cummings, and Van
Hollen.
Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; B. Chad
Bungard, deputy staff director/chief counsel; Chris Barkley and
Shannon Meade, professional staff members; Reid Voss,
legislative assistant/clerk; Patrick Jennings, detail from OPM
serving as senior counsel; Mark Stephenson and Tania Shand,
minority professional staff members; Earley Green, minority
chief clerk; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, everyone, for being here. I
appreciate your being with us this afternoon.
We are actually going to start the meeting until we get a
quorum, and then we will recess and get into the markup, which
really should be shortly. But for the element of time and for
those that are here, for the balance of the meeting, I'm going
to start the issue regarding Federal food inspection, and then
we will recess as soon as we have the quorum and go into the
markup.
So with that, again, thank you for being here and good
afternoon. We're going to start by answering the question, what
is more scrambled than an egg? The answer is the Federal Food
Inspection System.
I'd like to let everyone know again, for the record, that
we will move into the markup, but this hearing is just about
the basic commonsense in finding ways to achieve efficiency and
economy for taxpayers.
As chairman of the subcommittee, I will continue to look
for ways to organize the government in a more effective manner
and to do so in an expedited fashion, such as reconstituting
Fast Track Authority for agency reorganization proposals.
We have chosen to examine the food inspection process today
only because of the seemingly nonsensical organizational
structure of the inspection process itself. For example, if
Congress were to set up an organizational structure today, I
hardly believe that we would have the USDA inspect
manufacturers of spaghetti with meat sauce, pepperoni pizza,
open face meat and poultry sandwiches, corn dogs and beef broth
daily and require the FDA to inspect manufacturers of spaghetti
without meet sauce, cheese pizzas, close faced, which are
traditional meat and poultry sandwiches, bagel dogs and chicken
broth once every 5 years.
We also would not require school lunches to be inspected
twice, once by the USDA and once by the FDA. It is almost too
hard to believe, but that's the organizational structure that
we have today in the current food inspection system. I'm sure
there was a method to this madness at one point in time, but we
have to be more efficient and find a more effective way to
organize the inspection process.
At the hearing this subcommittee held last March, it looked
into why the food inspection process has become what may seem
like an organizational nightmare. It was uncovered that 10
agencies are now responsible for executing more than 30 laws
directing how the Federal Government inspects food. Moreover,
the inspection process has become an intricate web of
governmental agencies with responsibilities that often overlap
one another, as I just cited a few moments ago. So the question
then becomes, who is to blame for this? Well, actually, the
blame for this organizational problem does not lie primarily
with the past organizations, Republicans or Democrats, or with
the food industry that has to live with this system. And as a
matter of fact, many folks in the food industry would prefer we
leave it the way it is. The blame lies primarily with Congress,
which has haphazardly passed the laws making the system what it
is today throughout the years. It has been a Band-Aided system.
Though the organizational problems with the system are
deep-seated. It does not let off the hook the agencies charged
with inspecting food for improving upon the job that they're
doing. I am deeply concerned with the findings uncovered by the
Government Accountability Office, which are contained in the
report I will release today, entitled, Federal Agencies Should
Pursue Opportunities to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage of
Resources.
The report focuses on the problem of overlap and
duplications between the various food inspection agencies. GAO
concentrated its investigation on the four agencies with the
most food inspection responsibilities, the USDA, the FDA, EPA
and National Marine Fisheries Service. As a result of the
hearing, GAO has made a number of recommendations for the
agency to better operate within the current operation
structure. The subcommittee will be examining those
recommendations today.
One of the more troubling findings in the report, though,
reveals that simply between the four agencies represented here
today there are 71--yes, 71 memorandum of understanding to keep
the agencies coordinating with one another. Of these 71
agreements, GAO recovered that only in seven cases did all
signatory agencies know that they were a party to the
agreement. This means that in 64 of 71 agreements, one or more
agencies were completely unaware that it was responsible for
coordinating with another agency on a certain matter. This kind
of example does not speak to safety of food. I want to make
that clear. We're not here to talk about safety of food,
although in the long run, it does have an impact. But we
understood that we have one of the best and safest food systems
in the world, we are just trying to make it more efficient.
Rather, it highlights the need that the Federal Government is
using the tax dollars taken from the American people as wisely
and efficiently as possible. Anything less than a lean and well
organized food inspection process is unacceptable.
Regardless of the organizational ideas offered today, I
would emphasize at the outset that everyone in this room is in
agreement that we want our food supply to be safe, so that's
not the issue.
I thank our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to
the discussion. Again, we are waiting for a quorum, so what I
would like to do is ask all those on the panel to please stand,
and I'll swear them in at this time.
On the first panel today, we're going to hear from Robert
Robinson. Mr. Robinson is the Managing Director of Natural
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office.
And we're going to hear from Dr. Robert Brackett, Director of
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food
and Drug Administration.
Welcome.
Then we'll hear from Dr. Merle Pierson, Acting
Undersecretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department Of
Agriculture. And then we will be hearing from Mr. Jim Jones,
Director of Pesticide Programs at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. And finally, we will hear from Richard Cano,
Acting Director of the Seafood Inspection Program at the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
OK. What I'd like to do is let the record reflect the
following.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Would you please be
seated.
Mr. Robinson, welcome. Thank you for joining us today, you
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE; ROBERT E. BRACKETT, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD
SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;
MERLE PIERSON, PH.D., ACTING UNDERSECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; JIM JONES, DIRECTOR OF
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND
RICHARD V. CANO, ACTING DIRECTOR, SEAFOOD INSPECTION PROGRAM,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding this hearing and giving us the
opportunity to express our views about the Federal food
safety's food inspection structure.
As you can see in our appendix to our statement, we have
been weighing on this and related topics for quite some time.
We first called for fundamental restructuring of the system in
1992 when my hair color was decidedly different than it is
today. In the more than a decade since then, some important
progress has been made in making our food safety system more
science based.
Of particular note, the agencies have begun requiring
companies to adopt the HACCP system to try to prevent
contamination before it occurs, rather than simply dealing with
it after it has been detected. HACCP shifted a significant
share of responsibility for ensuring safe food from government
to industry, and there are clear signs the industry has
responded. However, the same structural problems and
inefficiencies present in 1992 remain today. And in the
intervening years, a number of trends have emerged that make
the case for restructuring even more compelling today.
First, as the Comptroller General pointed out in his 2003
testimony before this subcommittee, our Nation is facing
increasingly serious long-term fiscal challenges. We are on an
unsustainable fiscal path that, without a change in course,
could have future revenues unable to cover much more than
interest on the debt just a few decades from now. If we ever
could, we probably have reached a point where we can no longer
afford a government weighed down by duplicative and overlapping
missions and functions.
Second, the chorus of voices calling for change is growing.
While a number of industry associations we contacted in
assembling our report continue to believe that the structural
problems are not significant, many other stakeholders are
coming to realize that the current structure doesn't meet the
commonsense test. In fact, a number of food companies subjected
to dual regulation by USDA and FDA told us that the overlaps
can be burdensome as they deal with two sets of HACCP
requirements and two sets of inspection approaches. In some
cases, they even told us of conflicting direction being
provided by different inspectors from different agencies.
Likewise, the Institute of Medicine, the Consumer
Federation of America and the National Commission on the Public
Service have now also supported a move to a more consolidated
structure.
Third, several other countries have moved to a single food
safety agency to increase efficiency, to eliminate conflicts of
interest and improve the safety of their food supply. As we
reported in February, officials in each of the seven developed
countries we reviewed believe the overall effect of
consolidation has been or is expected to be positive. For
example, as the first exhibit to your left shows, the
government of Denmark consolidated major food safety functions
that were performed by three separate entities, numerous
municipalities into a single agency, the Danish Veterinary and
Food Administration. As the second exhibit shows, Canada also
consolidated food inspection functions from food agencies into
a single Canadian food inspection agency, while placing public
health policy and standard setting with Health Canada.
Finally, as we pointed out in the report you're releasing
today, the overlap and duplication consequences of our current
organizational structure are becoming more apparent. Because
the key agencies still have jurisdiction over different
segments of the food supply, USDA and FDA both conduct
overlapping and even duplicative inspections at more than 1,450
domestic food processing facilities that produce multi-
ingredient foods or different types of food. In our view, this
represents an inefficient use of increasingly scarce government
resources. For example, as shown in the third exhibit, a
facility that the GAO team visited that produces both meat and
seafood products and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of
both USDA and FDA, the USDA inspector is there on a daily
basis. And because of the physical plant layout, the inspector
must walk through an area containing FDA-regulated seafood.
However, because FDA regulates seafood, the USDA inspector does
not monitor or inspect that section of the plant.
As the final exhibit shows, most Federal food safety
expenditures involve inspection or enforcement activities.
Oddly enough, though, USDA spends about 75 percent of these
inspection dollars, even though it is responsible for
regulating about 20 percent of the food supply. Conversely, FDA
regulates about 80 percent of the food supply, but spends only
about 25 percent of these dollars.
FDA and the seafood inspection program run by the National
Marine Fisheries Service also conduct somewhat overlapping
inspections at about 275 domestic seafood facilities. The NMFS
program is a volunteer fee-for-service that is not mandated by
legislation. However, FDA does not take full account whether
NMFS has already inspected a facility when devising its
inspection plans.
USDA and FDA also both inspect imported foods at U.S. ports
of entry, and the agencies also visit foreign countries to
perform equivalence exams, but they do so under significantly
different authorities. Thus, in 2004, USDA conducted
equivalence reviews in 34 countries that supply meat and
poultry products to the United States. FDA also sent separate
teams to conduct inspections in 6 of these same 34 countries.
Finally, USDA and FDA spend millions of dollars each year
developing and delivering food inspection training that could
easily be unified.
Testifying to the cumbersome structure in an effort to
reduce duplication of effort, among other objectives, Federal
agencies have developed at least 71 interagency agreements.
Unfortunately, the agencies are having difficulty trying to
make these agreements work because they don't have adequate
mechanisms for tracking them; in many cases, couldn't identify
that they existed. In other cases, they simply have not been
able to implement them effectively on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, we continue to hold
the view that we first expressed more than a decade ago, the
Federal Food Safety Inspection System is fragmented and based
on outdated laws that reduce its effectiveness and efficiency.
The millions of foodborne illnesses and thousands of
hospitalizations in foodborne disease-related deaths tell us we
can be more effective. The duplicative inspections, overlapping
training and uneven information-sharing among agencies tell us
we can be more efficient. The experiences of seven developed
countries that moved forward and consolidated their previously
fragmented operations tell us that better operations are
possible.
And finally, the Nation's growing fiscal imbalance tells us
that there is growing urgency to address inefficiencies
whenever we find them. With that, let me pause, and I would be
anxious to answer questions when the time comes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.029
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
I would like to take this time now to recess our hearing on
the food inspection system and open our hearing regarding the
markup on H.R. 994, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 1765.
[Recess.]
Mr. Porter. We will go back to the other hearing, and bring
it back into session, and that's the Federal Food Inspection
System.
Thank you, Mr. Robinson, again for your testimony.
And I would now like to ask Robert Brackett, again,
Director of Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food
and Drug Administration, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BRACKETT, PH.D.
Mr. Brackett. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman
Porter and members of the subcommittee.
I am Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D, Director of the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA, which is part of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role that the
HHS plays in the Federal Food Safety System. As has been
stated, ensuring the safety of the food supply continues to be
a top priority for HHS and the administration, and so I am
pleased to be here today with my colleagues from USDA, EPA and
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Your letter of invitation mentioned that this hearing will
examine the need for reorganizing Federal food safety
activities. The current system of interagency coordination is
helping to improve the safety of the food supply and will
continue to look for new ways to further this coordination. The
American food supply continues to be among the safest in the
world, and the current Federal Food Safety System is working
well.
Just last month, the Centers for Disease Control
Prevention, in collaboration with FDA and USDA, released a
report with preliminary surveillance data that showed important
declines in 2004 in foodborne infections due to common
pathogens. This report shows that we are achieving significant
public health outcomes in the effort to reduce the incidence of
foodborne illness to the lowest level possible.
FDA is the Federal agency that regulates everything we eat
except for meat, poultry and egg products, which are regulated
by our partners at USDA. FDA's responsibility also extends to
life-food animals and animal feed.
You asked about our role in the food inspection system. In
fact, FDA has many roles. For example, FDA conducts
investigations into foodborne illness outbreaks, along with CDC
and our Federal and State partners. And FDA conducts
inspections of food manufacturing facilities. We utilize a
risk-based approach and expect high-risk facilities with
greater frequency than low-risk facilities. We have many
contract and partnership agreements with States to assist us
with the domestic inspection activities. In addition, FDA works
closely with States and local officials on inspections at the
retail level.
For foreign producers, FDA conducts a limited number of
compliance inspections of high-risk food facilities, such as
firms that manufacture low-acid can foods or infant formula.
FDA also works through the international organization such as
Codex Alimentarius to establish international standards.
Through this mechanism, we extend science-based inspection of
standards worldwide.
To manage the ever-increasing volume of imported food
shipments, we also utilize risk-management strategies. Through
the use of an electronic screening system, FDA is able to
concentrate its inspection resources on high-risk shipments
while allowing the low-risk shipments to proceed into commerce.
FDA personnel conduct examinations and collect and analyze
samples as necessary to determine compliance with FDA's food
safety requirements.
You asked FDA to respond to a recent report by GAO about
the use of Federal food safety resources. And we certainly
share GAO's interest in finding ways to make FDA more
efficient. However, we do not believe the report provides an
accurate assessment of how to achieve this. We do not agree
with GAO's characterization of what constitutes overlap. In
processing establishments, there are no food products that both
FDA and USDA regulate. Each agency inspects those products over
which it has jurisdiction. The FDA and USDA inspectors have
different educational backgrounds, have received different
training and have responsibility for different food products
and industries.
GAO's report cites the inspection of dual jurisdiction
establishments, so-called DJEs, as a primary example of
overlapping and efficiency. DJEs are facilities that are
regulated by both FDA and USDA because the establishment
produces food products that fall under each agency's
jurisdiction. We do not agree with GAO's emphasis on inspection
of these facilities as a way to save resources and achieve
efficiencies. DJEs comprise less than 2 percent of the total
food processing or manufacturing facilities in the United
States, and further, the report did not seem to take into
account the fact that more than half of the 1,451 dual
jurisdiction facilities are low-risk facilities, such as
warehouses, that do not require a high inspection frequency.
Thus, the opportunity for achieving efficiencies through
leveraging of inspection resources for these facilities is
quite small.
As noted in the report, FDA and USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service have signed a memorandum of understanding to
facilitate the sharing of information about DJEs. This MOU has
been successful in enhancing collaborative activities to
improve public health protection. To further strengthen this
MOU, we have agreed to conduct some additional joint training.
We are also following up on GAO's report recommendations to
inventory all active interagency agreements and to evaluate and
update them as necessary.
I would like now to provide some other examples of
successful collaborations with our food safety partners. HHS,
USDA, EPA and other agencies are working with the Department of
Homeland Security to achieve the objectives of homeland
security Presidential Directive No.'s 7, 8, and 9, which
identify critical infrastructures, improve response planning,
and establish a national policy to defend the agriculture and
food systems against terrorist attacks, major disasters and
other emergencies.
DHS serves as the coordinator of the food and agriculture
sector, with the FDA and HHS as the lead for the food sector,
and the Homeland Security Office and USDA as the lead for the
agricultural sector. Today, FDA and FSIS are also announcing a
joint proposal to establish a set of general principles for
evaluating existing and proposed food standards. General food
standards are used to ensure that products sold under
particular names have the characteristics expected by
consumers. Adherence to the proposed principles will result in
more modern standards that will better promote honesty and fair
dealing, and will allow for technological advances for food
processing. Such technological advances mean enhanced
manufacturing efficiency and reduced costs, which could benefit
consumers through lower prices and increased product diversity
in the marketplace.
In conclusion, FDA is working closely with its Federal food
safety partners and others to protect the food supply from
deliberate and accidental contamination. And as a result of
this effective collaboration, the Federal Food Safety System is
stronger than ever before.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brackett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.047
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Brackett. Before we move on, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to submit testimony from
Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro. Any objections? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.052
Mr. Porter. Next, Dr. Pierson, welcome, Acting
Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MERLE PIERSON, PH.D.
Mr. Pierson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about
the important issue of protecting the Nation's food supply.
I'm Dr. Merle Pierson, Acting Undersecretary for Food
Safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The mission of the agency under the Food Safety Inspection
Service is to ensure that meat, poultry and egg products
prepared for use assembling food are safe, secure, wholesome
and accurately labeled. FSIS is charged with administering and
enforcing the Federal Meat, Poultry and Egg Products Inspection
Acts.
Ensuring the safety of meat, poultry and egg products
requires a strong infrastructure. FSIS has a work force of over
7,600 inspection personnel in approximately 6,000 federally
inspected meat, poultry and egg product plants, import
establishments every day. These public health inspection
personnel verify each year that 43.6 billion pounds of red
meat, 49.2 billion pounds of poultry, and 33.7 billion pounds
of liquid egg products, as well as 4.2 billion pounds of
imported products comply with the agency's regulatory
requirements.
Our efforts are paying off, as seen by the decline in
foodborne illness over the last 7 years. Last month, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported continued
reductions in foodborne illnesses in 2004 from E. Coli 157:H7,
Listeria monocytogenes, Camplyobacter, Yersinia, and
Salmonella.
The CDC contributes the changes in the incidents of these
infections in part to the control measures implemented by
government and industry leaders, enhanced food safety education
efforts and increased attention by consumer groups and the
media. Through close cooperation, communication and
coordination, Federal agencies and others do work effectively
together to ensure a safe and secure food supply. As a partner
in the U.S. food safety effort, Food Safety Inspection Service
strives to maintain a strong working relationship with its
sister public health agencies.
We appreciate the GAO's efforts in producing their March
2005 report on what they call overlaps in the Federal Food
Safety System. However, I am concerned with any assessment that
oversimplifies the food safety regulatory functions of FSIS and
FDA, as well as others. And it is not clear on the inherent
complexities and differences in our work. It is important to
recognize that while FSIS and FDA inspection activities may
seem similar in some cases, there are essential differences due
to their authorities and responsibilities.
I want to point out that considering what GAO describes as
jurisdictional overlap between FSIS and FDA, particularly with
regard to dual jurisdiction establishments, the amount of food
products and number of establishments that fall within these
dual jurisdiction establishments is small compared to what the
two agencies regulate independently.
Another topic the GAO report dealt with, the joint
training: Both FSIS and FDA HAPCC and sanitation is important
aspects of the regulations, and there are certain similarities
in hazards and their controls. However, in the broader context,
specific food safety hazards and sanitary approaches differ
greatly by product, thus necessitating differences in
provisions in how the rules are applied.
FSIS's HACCP regulations apply to all meat and poultry
products. FDA has two of its inspected commodities, seafood and
juices, under mandatory HACCP.
FSIS has experienced considerable change over the past few
years with the adoption of a HACCP-based regulatory system, an
implementation of policies that have worked to provide a
significant reduction in foodborne illness. It is essential
that the agency's resources be effectively directed toward
those areas of greatest risk and not be diverted to efforts
that have little potential for improving public health.
We look forward to working with Congress, GAO and our food
safety partners to continue the best we can to make our
Nation's food supply the safest in the world. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.066
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate it.
Thank you, Doctor.
Now we will hear from Jim Jones, Director of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM JONES
Mr. Jones. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. My name is Jim Jones, and I serve as the Director of
the Office of Pesticide Programs at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
EPA's role in food safety and how we coordinate with other
Federal agencies on this important topic.
EPA's main food safety responsibility is to regulate
pesticides, including setting health-based standards for
pesticides use in food production, and ensuring our decisions
promote the protection of public health and the environment.
The EPA protects public health through the registration or
licensing of pesticides prior to their marketing and use in the
United States under the authority of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as well as setting and
reevaluating tolerances or legal maximum residue levels under
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This requires use of a
scientifically sound risk assessment process to consider the
potential risks of pesticide use not only to human health, but
to the environment as well.
Registration tolerances will be granted only if EPA
determines that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from
exposure to the pesticide residues in food and the use of the
pesticide will not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment.
In addition to pesticides, EPA also works closely with FDA
on the development and publication of National Fish Advisories
for fish and shellfish. While EPA is responsible for
establishing pesticide tolerances during the registration
process, FDA and USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service enforce
these tolerances. If pesticide residues on food or feed exceed
the tolerance, or if no tolerance exists for such pesticide
residues, the food or feed would be subject to regulatory
action.
EPA actively cooperates and collaborates with FDA and FSIS
regarding tolerance levels for pesticide residues on both
domestically produced and imported foods. Some of the data EPA
uses when establishing tolerances are generated through
interagency agreements with USDA, FDA and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. These agreements provide
valuable information related to food consumption patterns,
pesticide use and expected levels of pesticide residues once
food products actually reach the consumer.
The Agency is also partner to a number of agreements in
areas such as training for agricultural workers, providing
alternatives to the use of pesticides and coordinating work on
pesticide residues.
As mentioned by Dr. Brackett, EPA is collaborating with
other food safety agencies, including FDA and USDA and the
Department of Homeland Security on a number of initiatives to
protect the Nation's food supply from natural, unintended or
malicious threats.
In closing, EPA is committed to continuing to work with our
Federal partners, including FDA, USDA and others, to ensure
that the United States maintains its well-earned reputation for
protecting the safety of our Nation's food supply.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Jones. We appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.072
Mr. Porter. Next we have Richard Cano, Acting Director of
Seafood Inspection Program, National Marine Fisheries Services.
You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD V. CANO
Mr. Cano. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to speak on the GAO report, Oversight of
Food Safety Activities. I am Richard Cano, Acting Director of
the Seafood Inspection Program of the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. My testimony today will
provide a brief description of the Seafood Inspection Program
and comment on the GAO report.
NOAA oversees the fishery management in the United States.
Through the delegated authority of both the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956,
NOAA provides voluntary seafood inspection programs on a fee-
for-service basis.
The NOAA Seafood Inspection Program offers a variety of
professional inspection services, including vessel and plant
sanitation, product inspection, laboratory analysis, training
and consultation. These activities ensure that products from
firms participating in the NOAA Seafood Inspection Program
comply with all applicable Federal regulations.
Our inspections, both in the United States and in other
countries, examine facility conditions, personnel practices and
safety and effectiveness of protocols. To ensure safe and
properly labeled products, our evaluation considers both the
risks associated with the product and the manufacturing
process. We inspect products directly at the facility and by
taking random samples from warehouses.
NOAA also certifies products by periodically monitoring
written industry control systems to ensure facilities are
meeting their responsibilities. For example, we use Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP], techniques that focus
on hazard identification, problem prevention and corrective
actions taken by industry to produce complying products.
By identifying and monitoring control points in the
process, our HACCP-based program helps ensure that requirements
such as proper labeling and quality attributes are met, in
addition to safety.
In 1974, NOAA signed a memorandum of understanding with the
Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and
Human Services recognizing our agencies' related
responsibilities. This agreement is designed to outline a
working relationship in the public interest to enable each
agency to discharge as effectively as possible its
responsibilities related to the inspection and standardization
activities for fishery products. In general, this agreement
outlines requirements regarding adulterated and misbranded
products, how best to maximize resources, and the need for
effective communication between the agencies.
The most notable accomplishment under this agreement has
been in the area of training. NOAA's inspection staff has
benefited from FDA's willingness to provide access to their
online training modules. Since January 2003, NOAA personnel
have completed approximately 9,100, a combined employee total,
of the FDA online courses.
In addition, most NOAA workshops on sensory evaluation of
fishery products are jointly instructed by both NOAA and FDA
personnel, and NOAA provides an instructor to assist FDA in
retail training courses. However, both the FDA and NOAA believe
this agreement, which is now more than 30 years old, needs to
be assessed in the light of changing roles and
responsibilities, and we have been in discussions with FDA on
this. Both industry and other agencies use the NOAA Seafood
Inspection Program to ensure that fishery products procured and
distributed comply with regulatory requirements, purchasing
specifications and consumer expectations.
As the GAO report outlined, several agencies are involved
in food safety oversight. In general, we believe the report
does a fair and thorough job of describing the major food
safety activities at NOAA.
As the GAO report outlines, in fiscal year 2003, of the
$1.7 billion spent on food safety-related activities, NOAA
spent just under $22 million, only approximately 1 percent of
the total expenditure.
The GAO report made several recommendations, and I will
focus on those directly relevant to NOAA. As I mentioned
earlier, the FDA and NOAA have an interagency agreement. We
agree with the GAO recommendation for FDA and NOAA to ensure
the implementation of this agreement, and we will continue to
work with the appropriate components of FDA in order to do
this.
In addition, the report recommends that the leaders of each
of the agencies discussed in the report identify and inventory
all active interagency food safety-related agreements, evaluate
the need for these agreements and, where necessary, update the
agreements to reflect recent legislative changes, technological
advances and current needs. We agree with this recommendation
and will establish an inventory of active, interagency, food-
related agreements on which NOAA is a signatory.
In addition, NOAA will contact the applicable agencies
associated with food safety-related agreements whenever NOAA
believes an agreement should be revised.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
inviting me here to speak about our Seafood Inspection Program
and the recommendations in the GAO report. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Cano. I appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cano follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.075
Mr. Porter. I would like to start by asking a question to
all of you and would like a response.
In the GAO's report, they identified over 71 memoranda of
understanding, MOUs, between the four agencies present today.
Unbelievably, in only seven cases do all agencies party to an
agreement identify that they were a part of such an MOU. This
means in 64 of 71 cases, one or more agencies had no idea they
were part of an agreement.
How would you explain this?
We will start with Mr. Brackett.
Mr. Brackett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Many of these MOUs actually were written for specific
issues at the time. Many of them were also written at the local
level. These were meant to be operational, and in some cases
where the issue in the past may no longer be applicable, but
they were never taken off the books, consequently, what FDA is
doing is actually doing the inventory as was suggested by GAO,
looking through our MOUs, revising them if necessary,
sunsetting those that don't apply, and perhaps leaving those
alone that are working well.
Mr. Pierson. We also look at the MOUs in a similar fashion
to which Dr. Brackett has just commented on.
These have evolved over the years. If you notice, some of
these go back into the 1970's and 1980's and the like. We
certainly agree that they do deserve review. FSIS certainly is
willing to take a look at those MOUs that apply to them and see
whether or not we should revise them or sunset them or whatever
is appropriate for the MOUs.
MOUs have served a very, very important purpose for us in
many cases, and I just think of one now, for instance, with the
Public Health Service. We have an MOU with them relative to
members of the Public Health Service to become part of our Food
Safety Inspection Service, and we have a number of physicians
and veterinarians who are uniformed and work for us. For
example, our administrator of our Office of Public Health
Science is a physician from the Public Health Service, and he
is over there in part because of this MOU that was created.
So they do serve a very useful purpose, but, yes,
historically the ones that are there need to be reviewed, and
we will be doing that. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. I would agree with my colleagues on some of the
reasons why these MOUs have not been tracked as aggressively as
they should have been. Many of them at the Agency, the EPA, are
over 30 years old. We have now identified a tracking system to
make sure we have in front of us all the existing MOUs, and we
will be going back to look at them for their relevance. Some of
them may be sunsetted and some of them, updated.
Mr. Cano. As I mentioned, we are intending to establish an
inventory and to followup on any of the MOUs that NOAA is a
signatory to and that appear to need revision.
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a quick
summary comment?
Based on my 32 years of experience doing this kind of work,
any system that requires, at least--and I emphasize, at least--
71 interagency agreements to function is a system built for
problems. People retire. Agreements that are made on the ground
are based on human relations. Those things change over time.
Pretty soon, as we discovered in this particular case, folks
drift away and agreements are forgotten or not aggressively
implemented.
The whole system that begs for this volume of interagency
agreement is a system that is severely handicapped, in our
opinion.
Mr. Porter. It seems to me that these MOUs were the basis
for cooperation, supposed cooperation.
I know, Mr. Brackett, you mentioned they were for local
operational purposes. Can you expand upon that a little more?
Mr. Brackett. Sure, Mr. Chairman.
Many of these had very specific purposes. In one that we
have, for instance, with the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, it was specifically designed for information sharing,
particularly at the district level. That one actually called
for a reassessment after 1 year, which was done. It was not
reassessed after that because the MOU didn't request that. But
that particular operational MOU has continued on, and it has
been one of the more successful operational MOUs we have had,
as sort of evidenced by many of the joint enforcement actions
it has prompted.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Mr. Marchant, do you have any questions?
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The administration has put forth a proposal for results
commissions which would examine sectors of the government in
need of reform and issued recommendations for reorganization.
Under the proposal, Congress would vote the recommendation up
or down without amendment.
What is each of your opinions on promoting such a fast
track reorganization legislation to solve these problems we are
talking about today?
Mr. Brackett. Thank you, Mr. Marchant.
I am not in a position really to state with any authority
what reorganization proposals the administration would
contemplate, referring to commissions for consideration, but I
am certain the administration is not currently contemplating a
commission that would consider reorganization of the food
safety agencies at this point.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Pierson.
Mr. Pierson. Yes. Certainly we are supportive of any effort
where we can better address public health. That is our
baseline, is effectively addressing public health. However,
without knowing all the details, etc., of what is proposed and
what will finally transpire, it is very, very difficult to
comment specifically on that.
But I might say that the White House has established a
Policy Coordinating Committee, led by the Domestic Policy
Council and the National Economic Council, to look into the
issue of a single food safety agency. I believe this was in
2002. The Policy Coordinating Committee did conclude that the
goals of the administration are better advanced through
enhanced interagency coordination, rather than through the
development of legislation to create a single food safety
agency; and that is the current position of this
administration.
We feel that we have worked very effectively together, and
I think the outcomes, as seen, for example, by CDC, speak very
loudly to the success of effectively addressing food safety and
assuring public health.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Yes. Similar to my colleagues, I don't feel like
I am in a position to speak directly to the question related to
the results commission.
Mr. Cano. Similarly, I am not prepared to comment on that.
Mr. Marchant. You have recommended that all agencies
coordinate better when evaluating the food inspection system in
foreign countries. How do you think that this can be done in
the most effective and useful way for all the agencies?
Mr. Robinson. Well, Mr. Marchant, I think we come back to
where we have been for quite some time, that a consolidated
enterprise is the best way to proceed. A single food safety
agency that is independent, free of inherent conflicts of
interest, able to move resources about, to ensure two
delegations from two different agencies are in the same country
in the same year, evaluating essentially the same kinds of
things, is the way to go.
Again, systems built on trying to make interagency
agreements function are suboptimal by their definition, in our
opinion.
Mr. Marchant. Can you tell me, are the agencies self-
funded? Do the companies that you inspect the food of pay the
fees that fund the agencies?
Mr. Robinson. I will let the administration witnesses speak
for their own agencies, but in general, this is about--at least
in the last year we had complete data, about $1.7 billion in
appropriated funds were applied here. NIMS essentially operates
their enterprise on a fee-for-service basis, so they don't
receive a great deal of appropriated funds to conduct their
activities. They are done on a fee-for-service basis.
The rest of the agencies operate with appropriated funds,
with the exception of FSIS line inspectors; when they go into
overtime mode, the companies pay for the overtime. But the
regular tours of duty are paid for out of appropriated funds.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you.
Mr. Porter. Actually, I have a question for Dr. Pierson and
Dr. Brackett regarding the cheese pizzas. You think it makes
the most economically and efficient sense to require the USDA
to inspect pepperoni pizzas and require the FDA to inspect
cheese pizzas?
Actually, both of you.
Mr. Pierson. Certainly. This example has been used time and
time again as something where there appear to be very serious,
very large problems, discrepancies, etc.
Let me point out, like Dr. Brackett pointed out, first of
all, that these dual-jurisdiction establishments amount to a
very, very low percentage of volume and numbers of
establishments that we are dealing with. The vast bulk of our
inspection system deals strictly with meat, poultry and egg
products, not dual-jurisdiction establishments.
Our inspectors are required to be present daily by statute.
They are in these operations daily, where you would find meat
and poultry-topped products. We do have--through our MOU, we
feel the flexibility that if FSIS sees or perceives something
that is out of line, we can contact our colleagues at FDA and
inform them of a situation that is out of line or not
appropriate or meeting what we feel would be, potentially,
regulatory requirements.
Certainly this type of thing should be given consideration.
For example, the meat and poultry that goes on the pizzas has
already been federally inspected and passed, and we feel that
these sorts of products are, to us, low-risk products.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Mr. Brackett. Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Pierson said, many of
these sorts of confusing products are very small in comparison
to the rest of the food that we regulate, but nevertheless,
they have evolved over the years for numerous reasons, and
sometimes they may confuse some people.
We have discussed with our partners at FSIS, and will
continue to discuss, ways that we can clarify the jurisdiction;
and at some point in the future we would hope that we could
also provide this to the public for input also to see if we can
clarify better.
Mr. Porter. It seems to me this has been a problem for a
decade or more.
I guess, to followup on your answer, or partial answer, to
my question, I have outlined five or six, maybe seven different
areas of duplication. Why haven't you done something about
that? Why haven't you taken the initiative to correct and
create a more efficient program and more economical program for
the American people? Is it something not important, so you
allow it to continue, or am I missing something here?
Mr. Pierson. First of all, we are very concerned about the
resources and how we effectively apply those resources. We feel
that we do a pretty good job of that in, again, effectively
applying one to better provide protection, public health
protection.
There are management issues that we do in fact continually
address. There are just a number of issues that we do
constantly sort out of how we can better coordinate, cooperate
in terms of our effectivenesses and efficiencies.
I disagree with GAO's previous reports that there is this
matrix that has been evolving. And certainly we do not have the
instantaneous solution, but we are giving these, I think, due
consideration.
Mr. Brackett. Well, Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would
like to point out is, again, there are no foods that are
inspected duplicatively by both FSIS and USDA. We inspect those
ingredients or those foods for which we have statutory
authority, and that is the reason that is set up that way.
But, nevertheless, there are a number of foods, such as
those that you have mentioned, where the jurisdiction may not
be as clear to the outside. But, nevertheless, one or the other
of us is inspecting those, is making sure that they are safe;
and of course, in our minds, what is of foremost importance is
public health.
Mr. Porter. I appreciate that everyone in this room
believes everything is for the health of the American people. I
think that it is important to state it again, and I appreciate
hearing it. But, again, for over a decade we have been seeing
some distinctions between the two different agencies, but yet
you have not taken steps to correct some of these areas.
With the state of the budget--and I would expect, I think I
heard it today, some of you need additional funds for
operations; and if I haven't heard it today, I hear it most
every day from different Federal agencies, that they are
underfunded.
Yet, FDA does closed-face meat sandwiches, USDA does open-
face meat sandwiches. FDA does the frozen pizza, and USDA does
the pepperoni. FDA does hot dogs on a roll and the USDA does
hot dogs on a pastry dough. FDA does beef soup and USDA does
chicken soup. FDA does chicken broth, but USDA does beef broth.
It is very difficult for me to tell my constituents that we
are running these agencies in an efficient manner.
I appreciate you have done things this way and--for
whatever reason, but the reason we are here today is you
haven't taken steps to correct some of these problems.
I guess, Dr. Brackett, I want to ask you one more question
and then move on. Do you think there is room for improvement in
the organizational structure?
Mr. Brackett. Well, in each agency, I think we continually
look at the organizational structure to find out the best and
most efficient way to use our resources that we have. So I
think there is always room for improvement, and I think we are
always looking for ways to improve what we do.
Mr. Porter. What would you suggest for organizational
reforms as we move into the future? You are the expert. We are
Members of Congress and, of course, trying to take all the
information we can and come up with some possible solutions.
What would you suggest needs to be done to help improve the
efficiency and performance of your agency?
Mr. Brackett. Well, I think the main thing is that the two
agencies, regardless of the structure, are built upon what we
consider to be very strong food safety systems. That is the
reason for our being, and anything that would change the
structure would have to be looked at to see if it affected
that. That would include such things as maybe a Farm to Table
approach. The organization has to address that. It has to
address the proper amount of outreach to the consumers, as well
as to the regulated industry and the amount of research needed
to back up science-based decisions, which are based on risk
assessments.
It would also include the proper funding, surveillance and
reporting back, so that we knew that what we were doing is
efficient. Any kind of organizational change would have to be
looked at with that in mind, and also so that we would still be
in harmony with our legislative directives.
Mr. Porter. Dr. Pierson.
Mr. Pierson. Yes, we can, and we have created
organizational charts of new vintages and looked at them and
said, oh, we will do better under this structure and that
structure. I know when I first came in the under secretary's
office, one of the first thing we did was to do some
reorganization at FSIS.
One can do that. But I think the fundamental, important
concept here is, regardless of whether or not you are in FSIS,
FDA, EPA or combinations thereof, you have to have cooperation
and communication and coordination, and, to me, that is the key
to moving forward.
One of the examples that I think is very appropriate is the
cooperation, coordination and communication that occurred in
addressing the BSE situation here in the United States. Through
cooperative efforts of a number of agencies, we were able to
provide consumers with immediate assurance of the safety of our
beef supply and to coordinate very, very tireless efforts to
reopen markets. We are very hopeful that is going to happen.
But it required a tremendous amount of coordination between
agencies within USDA, with FDA and many others--the State
Department, USTR, etc.
So it is that coordination, I think, that is just so key
and so essential. If we act as stovepipes regardless of our
structure, we are not going to get ahead. We have to work
together.
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, may I weigh in?
Mr. Porter. Yes, but I want to comment first.
I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately, I don't
think you answered the question. I would agree that we need
more cooperation, and there is no question we need more
coordination. But what specific organizational reforms do you
think are needed? Again, yes, we need more coordination and
more cooperation.
But beyond those good political terms, what do you suggest
specifically be done, Doctor?
Mr. Pierson. Well, I think at this point for me to sit here
and provide some type of structure without working with my
colleagues and others at USDA and the like, you know, without
having that coordinated effort to give you a distinct answer in
terms of representing USDA, I think that would be inappropriate
for me.
Mr. Porter. Isn't that your job? I am sorry, isn't this
your responsibility?
Mr. Pierson. Yes. Well, I am Acting Under Secretary for
Food Safety in USDA, correct.
Mr. Porter. So your answer today is cooperation and
coordination?
Mr. Pierson. I think that is done very effectively. If we
talk about any type of restructuring, I think it has to be
through a collaborative effort to come out with a plan; and for
me, right now, to lay out a plan, I think I would have a lot of
people that I would be having to have further discussions with.
I think it is quite appropriate for me to work with others in
moving forward, if we were to discuss such things.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I was going to weigh in relative to the BSE
issue. We have done work on BSE, and I think it speaks to this
exact point you are raising here, that we pointed out
situations in our work where FDA, who had identified
potentially contaminated feed and didn't inform USDA of those
events and potentially--fortunately, it didn't turn out--
potentially put the system at risk. FDA's own acting counsel, I
think, has referred to the structure between FDA and USDA as
hampering Federal abilities to deal with this issue.
I also want to come back to your opening statement that the
problems here are unfortunately rooted in statute. The various
systems are directed largely by statute, and the statutes
direct that USDA has to have an inspector at every plant
looking at every carcass, carcass by carcass by carcass. Those
resources can't be shifted to other higher priority areas.
We now know that the food safety threats are seafood first,
fruits and vegetables second, eggs third, and meat and poultry
fourth. The resources by statute are heavily directed toward
the fourth priority and not priorities one through three. That
is not something that the agencies can do a heck of a lot
about. They are directed by statutes to do certain things the
way they are doing them now.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Robinson, I partially agree, but partially
disagree. Yes, it is directed by statute, but I would hope that
the agencies wouldn't expect all the statutes to come out of
this body. I would expect that in their role and
responsibilities, they would bring forward ideas and
suggestions, because if they don't, then we are going to pass
legislation that may well be another Band-Aid.
I guess I agree with you, but we should take it a step
further. These are the experts, and we would hope in the future
that they would bring forward their own, and possibly they have
before my tenure. But I think your point is well taken.
Mr. Robinson. We recommended they do just that. Obviously,
I think you are hearing today there is no likelihood of that
occurring any time soon.
Mr. Porter. I won't repeat that, but I will concur. I think
that is part of the problem.
What I would like to do is say thank you to the panel for
being here, for your testimony. There may well be followup
questions.
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to submit written statements and questions for
the hearing record, and that any answers provided by the
witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents
and the materials referred to by the Members and witnesses may
be included in the hearing record and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, so ordered.
Again, I want to say, thank you all. I appreciate that we
have one of the best systems in the world. We are here today
just trying to make it a little bit better.
Thank you all for being here, and the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.102