[Senate Hearing 107-210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-210
FOOD SAFETY AND SECURITY: CAN OUR FRACTURED FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM RISE TO
THE CHALLENGE?
=======================================================================
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 SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 10, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-804 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
Hannah S. Sistare, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
Marianne Clifford Upton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Richardson, Minority Staff Director
Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Page
Opening statements:
Senator Durbin............................................... 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 23
WITNESSES
Wednesday, October 10, 2001
Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, accompanied by Keith W.
Oleson, Assistant Director, Natural Resources and the
Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office.................... 4
Hon. Rose L. DeLauro, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Connecticut................................................. 7
Hon. Elsa Murano, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food
Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture......................... 10
Bernard Schwetz, Ph.D., D.V.M., Acting Principal Deputy
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, accompanied by Joseph A. Levitt,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food
and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 13
Hon. Dan Glickman, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.,
former Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture 15
Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for
Science in the Public Interest................................. 27
John Cady, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Food
Processors Association......................................... 28
Peter Chalk, Ph.D., Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation............. 30
C. Manly Molpus, President and Chief Executive Officer, Grocery
Manufacturers of America....................................... 31
Tim Hammonds, President and Chief Executive Officer, Food
Marketing Institute............................................ 33
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cady, John:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Chalk, Peter, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 113
DeLauro, Hon. Rose L:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Glickman, Hon. Dan:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Hammonds, Tim:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 138
Jacobson, Michael F., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 100
Molpus, C. Manly:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Murano, Hon. Elsa, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Robinson, Robert A.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Schwetz, Bernard, Ph.D., D.V.M.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 74
APPENDIX
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW),
prepared statement............................................. 149
FOOD SAFETY AND SECURITY: CAN OUR FRACTURED FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM RISE TO
THE CHALLENGE?
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. This hearing will come to order. I thank
you all for coming today to discuss issues of food safety and
security. Some of my colleagues are running a little bit late.
This has been an unusual morning because we had a memorial
service for Senator Mike Mansfield. Most of us have just gotten
off the buses and many of my colleagues had to quickly return
to their offices. They will be joining us in a few minutes.
They are running a little bit late, but I thank you all for
coming today.
The hearing will come to order and good afternoon. I am
pleased to welcome you to this hearing of the Senate
Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government Management. We are
going to focus on food safety and security and the question:
Can our fractured food safety system rise to today's challenge?
Let me say at the outset--and will say repeatedly--we have the
safest food supply in the world. That is something that bears
repeating, because even though we are raising questions about
how to improve the system, we start off with a food supply that
is second to none. The question which we are going to be asking
ourselves today is whether or not we can improve the system.
For many years now, I have worked on this issue, of food
safety focusing on questions which involve hazards in food that
are naturally occurring that can be avoided with appropriate
inspection and processing. In the last several weeks this
conversation has changed. It is no longer just about food
safety. It is about food security, and that is one of the
aspects which we also have to take into account. That is one of
the reasons why I wanted to bring this group together today.
Our government structure divides responsibility for food
safety and security between at least a dozen Federal agencies
operating under 35 different Federal statutes. It is a system
of divided responsibility. It is a system of rivalry, in some
aspects, when it should be one of cooperation. It is
duplicative, it is costly and it is unduly complicated. It is
impossible to explain. In an age where our Nation's food supply
is facing tremendous pressure from emerging pathogens to an
ever-growing volume of food imports, from changing food
consumption patterns to an aging population susceptible to
food-related illness and even potential food security risks, we
must have a system in place to ensure the safety of our food.
Now is the time to fundamentally set the course for a food
safety system that is not only more efficient and effective,
but one based on science, with the promise of sustaining the
confidence of the consuming public. It is time for our
government to have a single food safety agency. I do not
believe there is a person in this room or in this city or this
Nation that would say to us today that if they had to invent a
food safety system, they would invent what we have in place.
Make no mistake, as I said, our country is blessed with
safe and abundant food supplies, but we can do better.
Foodborne illness is a significant problem. While food may
never be completely free of risk, we have to strive to make our
food as safe as possible. Americans at every level, Federal,
State and local, industry and the consuming public, share this
responsibility. The Center for Disease Control estimates that
as many as 76 million Americans will suffer food poisoning this
year. Of those individuals, 325,000 will be hospitalized, and
more than 5,000 will die. Children and the elderly are
especially vulnerable.
In terms of medical costs and productivity losses,
foodborne illnesses cost the Nation billions of dollars
annually. The situation is not going to improve without
decisive action. In fact, the Department of Health and Human
Services predicts that foodborne illnesses and deaths will
increase 10 to 15 percent over the next decade from natural
hazards. Over the past 25 years, the GAO and other
organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, have
issued report after report describing the problems with Federal
food safety oversight and the need for a single food agency.
These organizations have made many recommendations for change.
I think it is time we make that fundamental lasting change
that GAO has asked for. We need that single food agency. I
introduced the Safe Food Act of 2001 last week. It combines the
functions of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, the
FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine, the Department of Commerce's
seafood inspection program, and the food safety functions of
several other Federal agencies. This new agency will be funded
by the combined budgets of the consolidated agencies.
Following the events of September 11, we are more keenly
focused on how varied aspects of America's homeland security,
including our Nation's food supply, may be vulnerable to
attack. Our Federal food safety system must be able to prevent
potential food hazards from reaching the public. We must
establish procedures on the farm and during the various stages
of food processing to ensure that no form of deliberate
contamination reaches consumers. We also have to critically
examine our import procedures to determine if they are adequate
to protect the public from food-safety threats. A single food
agency will help ensure that we have a cohesive process in
place.
Last night, I met with David Byrne, who is the Health and
Consumer Products Commissioner for the European Union. He is a
man I met several years ago at a St. Patrick's Day parade in
Chicago--he reminded me of that. He is trying at this point in
time to establish this type of agency for the European Union.
Now is the time for us to start that dialogue with the European
Union, to continue a dialogue that may have started before, but
in more earnest and sincere terms. As we look around the world
to those countries which seek to import from the United States
and export to our country, we have to establish some
meaningful, scientific, reasonable standards, so that we know
the product that is moving across the border is safe for
everyone.
Overlapping jurisdictions of Federal agencies have really
lessened accountability. A single agency focuses our policy and
improves our enforcement. Let me just say that research could
be better coordinated, as well, with a single agency. Currently
Federal funding for food safety research is spread over more
than a dozen different Federal agencies, and coordination is
very limited. 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.
With the incidence of food recalls on the rise, it is
important to move beyond short-term solutions. A single agency
could more easily work toward long-term solutions. In this era
of limited budgets, it is our responsibility to modernize and
streamline the system. This Subcommittee has been discussing
the weaknesses of the Federal food safety system for decades. I
have not been here in that discussion for decades, but it has
been going on that long. It is time to move forward. Let's stop
discussing the need and actually make it happen. I am
encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me
to consolidate the food safety and security functions.
At this point I was going to recognize Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro, who I understand is on the way and may be here
momentarily. When she does, I am going to invite her to come up
and speak and interrupt the panel that may be speaking at the
time--I hope everyone will understand--because of her schedule.
Let me at this point welcome our first panel then. Robert
Robinson is the Managing Director of Natural Resources and
Environment with the U.S. General Accounting Office. He is
accompanied by Keith Oleson, who is the Assistant Director of
GAO's Natural Resources and Environment Division. Thank you for
being here. We look forward to your testimony. It is customary
for the Subcommittee to swear in all of our witnesses. So, if
you would not mind standing, do you swear that the testimony
you are about to give is the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Oleson. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Let me note for the
record that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please,
if you could limit your oral statements so that we can follow
up with some questions----
Mr. Robinson.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ROBINSON,\1\ MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACCOMPANIED
BY KEITH W. OLESON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to weigh in on this matter of real national importance. As you
know and have just mentioned, GAO has long called for the
establishment of a single food safety agency responsible for
implementing uniform and risk-based food safety legislation. I
am here today to renew this call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson appears in the Appendix
on page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we believe the case for such action has been
compelling for some time, recent tragic events and the
increased threats these actions portend for the future make the
need for action all the more imperative. While the American
food supply is generally safe, the 5,000 deaths and millions of
illnesses attributed to foodborne pathogens each year provide
ample evidence that the system needs improvement. The current
regulatory system did not emerge from a comprehensive design,
but rather was cobbled together piecemeal over many years. The
patchwork that now exists hampers efforts to adequately address
existing and emerging food safety threats, whether those risks
involved inadvertent or deliberate contamination.
It has also led to an inefficient and inflexible deployment
of resources, as well as inconsistent oversight and enforcement
of products with comparable risk. With respect to resources,
the current deployment is not particularly rational and
certainly is not risk-based. FSIS and USDA spends about 70
percent of the Federal food safety regulatory dollar inspecting
on a daily basis about 6,000 meat, poultry and egg
establishments that collectively produce about 20 percent of
federally-regulated foods. FDA, on the other hand, has less
than half of FSIS's funding to oversee about 10 times more food
production facilities and about four times more federally-
regulated foods.
In this context, the resulting oversight of food production
is quite inconsistent. Over the years, as I am sure you are
aware, we have used a number of food items, including canned
soup and frozen pizza, to put a specific face on the systems of
irrationality. This time we will use a packaged sandwich. As
you can see from our graphic, if you are producing a packaged
open-faced meat or poultry sandwich, you get inspected daily by
FSIS. If, on the other hand----
Senator Durbin. Part of the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. If, on the other hand, you are producing
a closed-face sandwich with identical ingredients, you get
inspected by FDA on average once every 5 years.
The current fragmented structure also has implications for
food imports, an area of growing importance to our food supply.
FSIS and FDA employ vastly different approaches. On the one
hand, meat and poultry cannot be exported to the United States
unless FSIS has determined that the exporting country has an
equivalent food safety system. This allows FSIS to leverage its
inspection resources. Also, until FSIS approves the release of
imported products, they generally must be kept in a registered
warehouse. Unlike FSIS, however, FDA does not have authority to
require equivalency agreements and is thereby forced to rely on
widely discredited port-of-entry inspections. Also, because FDA
does not control imported foods prior to its approval for
release, some adulterated imports have been released into U.S.
commerce.
Now, of course, overhanging these long-standing limitations
in the current food safety system is the prospect of deliberate
terrorist contamination. The likelihood of such an attack is
unknown. In a recent report we identified only two acts of
deliberate food supply contamination over the past 15 years.
However, based on the nature of our food system and the
weaknesses we have already identified, we believe there is
reason to doubt our system's ability to detect and quickly
respond to an orchestrated bioterrorist attack. The U.S. food
distribution system moves food from production to markets in
hours. Even if contamination was detected by the extremely
limited testing that occurs, vast amounts could already be in
the hands of consumers. Furthermore, even if the current
surveillance system worked as intended, the problem would not
be typically identified until multiple illnesses were reported.
Our fragmented system would compound these inherent
difficulties; for example, determining which Federal agency was
responsible for responding could take precious time when speedy
action would be absolutely essential. Similarly, split
responsibility could impede timely laboratory testing and the
ability to marshal the full range of Federal resources. Mr.
Chairman, as you have mentioned, while no system can be
foolproof, the fragmented system now in place is simply not
good enough. A single food safety agency is needed now more
than ever. In this regard, we are gratified to note that
consolidation of food safety activities is supported by the
National Academy of Sciences, the President's Council on Food
Safety and a large number of former food safety officials. It
is also consistent with the recent actions taken by a number of
other nations, including Canada, Great Britain, Denmark, and
Ireland.
Before concluding, I also want to make you aware of related
work that you may find useful. This work was performed by us in
1998 when we issued a classified report to the full Committee
that laid out the vulnerability of U.S. agriculture to a
biological attack. We have updated that work and have prepared
a classified briefing. The team is here and can present the
information in a closed environment whenever called upon.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Robinson, and I will take you
up on that, which, of course, will not be today, but we will do
it in a different setting. You made reference to U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Our former Secretary is here and
many of us have worked with that Department and think very
highly of it. I have equally high regard for the Food and Drug
Administration. Many people argue that we are dealing with two
different cultures between these agencies, in terms of the way
they look at their responsibility. As the GAO took a look at
food inspection, did you note any differences in approach or
application of science or different cultures?
Mr. Robinson. Well, differences in approach are pretty much
across the board, and a lot of it has to do with different
legislative authorities and requirements. Practically on every
front, the authorities are different and, hence, the approaches
almost necessarily are different. You could pretty much go down
the line and identify those differences.
Senator Durbin. Let's get down to basics. Some argue that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, because it has a
responsibility to promote the products, consumption and the
like, is not in a good position to be a watchdog over the
agencies and the Department--the facilities and the businesses
that it regulates through this inspection, whereas FDA takes a
much different approach when it comes to approvals for medical
devices and pharmaceuticals and the like. Did you note that in
the GAO review of this process?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. This goes to the basic rationale that
finally led us to conclude that an independent agency was the
way to go. USDA fundamentally has the FAA problem. The same
agency that is responsible for promoting the industry is also
responsible for regulating the safety of the product, obviously
conflicting interests. FDA, on the other hand, has a situation
where the bulk of its resources have usually been devoted to
the ``D'' part of the agency, leaving the ``F'' part of the
agency in somewhat more of a stepchild environment when
resource allocations decisions were to be made. So there is a
fundamental----
Senator Durbin. When I took a look at this issue to try to
determine how we can move from where we are today to a single
food agency, it was really tough to find a lot of parallels.
The closest I could find was the creation of the Environmental
Protection Agency, where we took a lot of different agencies
and brought them together under one roof with one mission, and
if I am not mistaken, it also involved a transition period
before the EPA could really open its doors and get down to
business. Do you have any thoughts on that aspect, moving from
where we are today to a single food agency? Have you seen any
examples in other countries where they have tried to accomplish
this?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, a few years ago we did joint work with
our Canadian Office of Auditor General counterparts. We issued
a joint report with them on food import controls, and that
report led the Canadians to take action. They have moved pretty
aggressively or much more aggressively than we have to
establish a single food safety agency and although early, the
signs seem to be positive. As I mentioned in my statement, the
British have moved in that direction, as have other Nations and
the EU is now considering it, as you mentioned.
I think the arguments are so compelling--the inefficiencies
and the gaps and the overlaps are so obvious it almost raises
the question as to what is holding the move to rationality
back. There seems to be growing conceptual agreement on the
basic decision of consolidation. What remains to be worked out
is the details.
Senator Durbin. There are three things holding us back. I
can tell you what they are: One is Congress, where committees
have jurisdiction and do not want to give it up; the other
would be the agencies currently involved that are fearful of
losing jurisdiction; and the third are people who are
regulated. They are fearful of change. You put those three
together and you can explain why for 30 or 40 years this grand
idea has gone nowhere. Maybe the events of September 11 will
give us the impetus to change.
One last question before I recognize my friend,
Congresswoman DeLauro. You made a reference to the
international aspect of this and clearly that is something we
have to take into account, and you noted that the FDA, aside
from random border inspection, frankly does not do much by way
of inspecting food production overseas; is that correct?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. I think currently it is about 1 percent
of imports under their jurisdiction are inspected. With
additional resources that have been requested, that percentage
could rise a few points. But essentially you have to ask
yourself if raising that inspection level from 1 percent to 3
percent--it does not move you a lot further down the road;
whereas I think leveraging resources, like FSIS is allowed to
do, to ensure that foreign nations that will be the source of
our food imports have installed systems comparable to ours and
are implementing those systems based on testing, is a far more
efficient way, and I think, ultimately much more effective and
a more confidence-inducing way of proceeding.
Senator Durbin. Well, I have taken a big enough task,
dealing with trying to consolidate our domestic food safety
inspection, but I really believe, as I said at the outset, that
this should be discussed in a global context. As we are talking
about our allies now who are struggling against terrorism
worldwide, I think we can find the same type of alliances when
it comes to food safety and security, so that trade can
continue with peace of mind. My conversations yesterday with
the European Union led me to believe that they are ready for
this, as well. It not only will help us when it comes to food
safety and security, but in trying to find some common ground
and resolution to many other intractable food safety issues
between the EU and the United States. I hope that will be part
of it.
If I could ask you and Mr. Oleson to just stay where you
are for a moment, I am going to turn over the microphone to my
friend, Congresswoman DeLauro, who has been a leader on this
issue in the House. Thank you for coming.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROSA L. DELAURO,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman and my
good friend. I apologize to my colleagues at the table. I will
try to be brief. I would just like to say to my colleague, the
Chairman, Senator Durbin, that it has been an honor and a
pleasure to work with him. I sat on the Agricultural
Appropriations Committee when Senator Durbin was the chair over
there. This is an issue in which he has really taken such a
leadership role, and I am pleased that we are going to continue
to work on this effort, and I am grateful to hear about your
conversations with the European Union as to what we might be
doing with our allies overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. DeLauro appears in the Appendix
on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Nation's food safety is of critical importance, we all
agree with that. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
says that each year 76 million people get sick and 5,000 people
die from a food-related illness. I had a personal experience
with this problem. When I was a child I contracted Salmonella.
I was hospitalized for almost 2 weeks. I was so young that I
did not know why my parents had put me into this situation,
away from them and so forth, and I am told, though I do not
remember, that I refused to talk to them when I did get out of
the hospital.
The numbers are staggering nationwide, of people getting
sick and people who are dying, and they do not include a vast
number of unreported illnesses. The situation is not going to
improve without some decisive action. Also, in terms of what
happened on September 11, we need to be concerned about the
safety of our food from a bioterrorist attack. According to
Raymond Zilinskas, who is a senior scientist with the Monterey
Institute of International Studies, the most likely scenario
for a biological weapons attack would be foodborne or
beverageborne attack, using Salmonella, Shigella, or
Staphylococcal toxins.
Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
on October 3 submitted a request to OMB for additional money
for bioterrorism programs. In addition to other priorities, he
identified food safety as a vital area that needs to be
addressed. The Secretary has requested money for 200 imported
food inspectors and 100 domestic food inspectors. I might add
that several months ago on the debate on this year's
agricultural appropriation, I offered an amendment, which would
have provided $90 million for 1,600 FDA inspectors for imported
food and $73 million for 630 domestic inspectors. It was
defeated, but I think now more than ever we have to go back to
that effort.
Clearly, what we need is to have a comprehensive strategy,
a unified strategy. There are several agencies with different
and conflicting missions that ensure our food safety. There is
no standardization for inspections. Processed food facilities
may see an FDA inspector once every 5 to 6 years. Meat and
poultry is inspected daily. We need to do something. Everyone
here is agreeing.
In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences' study concluded
that, ``A model food safety system would have a unified
mission, a single official who is responsible for food safety
at the Federal level and who has the authority and the
resources to implement science-based policy and all Federal
activities related to food safety.'' It makes sense in order to
protect our food supply to consolidate food safety activities
into a single agency. I introduced the legislation in the House
of Representatives, like my colleague on the Senate side. It
establishes that independent agency with responsibility for all
Federal food safety activities. It would transfer food safety
inspection and food labeling activities to a new agency from
the several agencies that now are engaged in that process.
We have 32 co-sponsors of the legislation. It is
bipartisan. People understand that this is the direction that
we need to move in. This is just plain good government, in my
view. I might also add, in his campaign President Bush publicly
supported the idea of uniting all food safety responsibility
under one agency. On June 9, he said in Philadelphia, ``The
Federal Government is responsible for the safety of our
Nation's food supply. The way things work now, there is one
agency that inspects cheese pizza. There is another that
inspects pepperoni pizza. There is one agency that inspects
food grown outside of the United States, another for food grown
here inside the United States. Apparently the revolutionary
idea that maybe these functions could be combined has not
dawned on anybody yet.''
It is time to create a 21st Century approach to our food
safety system, particularly because we have got this problem in
the United States, but globalization, aging population, faster
production, distribution of food increases people being at
risk. I thank you for the opportunity to have me here today to
testify. This is good common sense. I look forward to working
with my colleague on this. I thank you again for your
leadership and I thank you for letting me cut into the line.
Senator Durbin. Congresswoman DeLauro, thank you and I know
your beeper went off, so you are going to have to make a mad
dash. I would just say that the one thing that we have to step
back and do--so many times now on Capitol Hill--is say if
terrorism disappeared tomorrow and our prayers were answered,
would this still be a good idea? I think the answer is clearly
yes, but terrorism has not disappeared and we have to put it
into the equation now. I think it really adds an element of
immediacy to this debate and perhaps it will move us off dead
center, where we have been too long. Thank you for your
leadership in the House. You are excused. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robinson, I understand that some of the people who have
headed up these agencies in the past at FSIS and FDA, once
liberated from government service, have announced that they
always thought this was a pretty good idea. Have you run into
that?
Mr. Robinson. We have obviously done some exploration with
individuals and touched base with eight or ten folks, and I
think is a pretty clear consensus, as I mentioned earlier, that
conceptually, consolidation makes all the sense in the world
and it ought to be pursued aggressively.
I do want to make the point, though, it is not just
consolidation of bureaucracies. You have 35 laws, as you
mentioned, out there that also need to be rationalized. The
basis for a lot of action is legislative in nature, and that is
going to have to be addressed to make a single food safety
agency realize the promise that so many of us believe it can.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Mr. Oleson, is there anything you would like to add?
Mr. Oleson. The individuals we contacted, former
administrators of FSIS and former commissioners of FDA, former
Under Secretary of Agriculture, former Secretary of
Agriculture, all concur that consolidation needs to take place
and they all agree that one thing that should be consolidated
is the inspection activities, at least. There are some
differences after we get past that on what should be included,
but inspection is one you can start with, as your bill clearly
recognizes, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Good. I appreciate both of you coming
today. Thank you very much for your testimony and continued
work. Maybe before GAO does another couple dozen reports making
this recommendation, Congress will actually do something.
Mr. Robinson. Well, the paper on the 1992 report, our first
one on the subject, is starting to yellow. [Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.
Mr. Robinson. We will be in contact with your staff
relative to the classified briefing.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
I want to welcome our next panel: Dr. Elsa Murano, the
recently confirmed Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food
Safety, thank you very much for being with us today; Dr.
Bernard Schwetz, who is the Acting Principal Deputy
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; accompanied by Joseph
Levitt, the Director for the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; and a good friend, former colleague and a great
public servant, Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture,
who is now in private practice with Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer,
and Feld. I want to make sure to announce that so, when you get
back, your partners will forgive you for the time you have
given us this day.
As I said earlier, it is customary to swear in the
witnesses, and I hope you will please stand and allow me to
administer the oath. Do you swear the testimony you are about
to give is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you, God?
Ms. Murano. I do.
Mr. Schwetz. I do.
Secretary Glickman. I do.
Senator Durbin. The record will indicate the witnesses
answered in the affirmative, and I would ask you to, if you
would, please give 5-minute opening statements, and your whole
statement will be submitted for the record.
Dr. Murano, would you be kind enough to start?
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELSA MURANO, PH.D.,\1\ UNDER SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FOR FOOD SAFETY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Murano. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear at today's hearing and
discuss our Nation's food safety system and structure. I am Dr.
Elsa Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. As you know, I am a newcomer to
USDA, having just been confirmed as Under Secretary on
September 26, and I was sworn in October 2. I am honored to be
serving in this important position and I am committed to the
hard work ahead. I know there are many important food safety
issues before the Congress, and I look forward to working
closely with you to make progress on those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Murano appears in the Appendix on
page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been a researcher and teacher in the field of food
safety. My research efforts have led me to investigate
pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7, Listeria Monocytogenes, and
Salmonella. I believe my experience as a scientist and educator
and my perspectives as an outsider looking in will be valuable
as I begin this new position. FSIS's mission is to ensure that
the Nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry and egg
products is safe, wholesome and correctly labeled and packaged.
FSIS's goal is to protect the public health by significantly
reducing the prevalence of foodborne hazards in meat, poultry
and egg products. FSIS has a long, proud history of protecting
the public health, dating back to 1906.
Although changes have been made over the years to the
inspection program, the most dramatic change occurred when FSIS
published a Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point--HACCP--systems rule in 1996. Under HACCP,
industry is accountable for producing safe food. Government is
responsible for setting appropriate food safety standards,
maintaining vigorous inspections to ensure those standards are
met, and maintaining a strong enforcement program to deal with
plants that do not meet regulatory standards.
Our food safety system is being challenged by many factors.
They include emerging pathogens, an increase in international
trade, new food products in the marketplace, a growing segment
of the population at greater risk of contracting foodborne
illnesses and gaps in education all along the farm-to-table
chain. On September 19 the Bush Administration published its
review of the food and agricultural system with a view toward
identifying critical needs for the next century. The report,
titled ``Food and Agricultural Policy, Taking Stock for the New
Century,'' details the enormous changes that have taken place
in food and agriculture. Food safety certainly is a vital part
of food and farm policy, and the report emphasizes this.
I would like to provide more details today about two key
areas of the food safety infrastructure and the importance of
integrated food safety programs. Let me begin with the USDA
food safety infrastructure. Inspection of meat, poultry and egg
products is an important part of that infrastructure. FSIS
currently has approximately 10,000 employees, the bulk of which
are stationed in the field. More than 7,600 inspection
personnel are stationed in approximately 6,000 meat, poultry,
and egg plants. FSIS also certifies foreign programs as
possessing public health safeguards that are equivalent to the
U.S. program and reinspects imported product as it enters the
United States.
FSIS is also responsible for assessing State inspection
programs that regulate meat and poultry products that may be
sold only within the State in which they are produced. There
are currently 27 states that have a State meat or poultry
inspection program and operate under cooperative agreements
with FSIS. Another part of the FSIS food safety program
involves its three multidisciplinary laboratories, which
conduct laboratory testing for microbiological contamination,
chemical and animal drug residues, pathological conditions,
processed product composition, and economic adulteration.
FSIS also conducts compliance and enforcement activities to
address situations where unsafe, unwholesome or inaccurately-
labeled products have been produced or shipped. Surveillance is
another part of the infrastructure. A strong food safety system
must have a mechanism for identifying new food safety problems
rapidly. USDA conducts surveillance of the food supply and HHS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in partnership with
State and local health departments, conducts surveillance for
human foodborne illness.
Outbreak responses is also key. Because coordination is
essential, we have taken steps to expedite communication during
large, multistate outbreaks. One mechanism is the Foodborne
Outbreak Response Coordinating Group, FORCG, a partnership
established to better respond to interstate outbreaks of
foodborne illness. USDA, HHS and EPA formed this partnership.
This interagency group has coordinated and developed procedures
for managing outbreaks, sharing information on potential
sources of outbreaks and pathogens, and coordinating
interdepartmental activities.
A similar group, the Food Emergency Rapid Response and
Evaluation Team, FERRET, has been established within USDA to
coordinate the activities of USDA agencies. USDA participates
in PulseNET, a national network of public health laboratories
supported by HHS. These laboratories aid outbreak response by
performing DNA fingerprinting of foodborne bacteria and
comparing results through an electronic database maintained by
CDC.
Research is another important part of the food safety
infrastructure. FSIS is not a research agency, but works
through the Agricultural Research Service to meet its research
needs. Risk assessment is another important part of the food
safety infrastructure. You can never completely eliminate
foodborne health hazards, and resources are limited. Risk
assessments help us to set priorities.
Education also figures prominently. Partnerships have been
key in education. The Fight Bac campaign is sponsored by the
Partnership for Food Safety Education, a public-private
partnership with participation from USDA, HHS, and the States.
I provided you folders containing some of the outreach and
educational materials we use in the food safety education
campaign. There are even a couple of brochures in Spanish, Mr.
Chairman, that you may enjoy.
Like every infrastructure, the food safety system requires
periodic review, ongoing reinforcement and appropriate
modernization just to keep pace with continuously emerging and
often unique challenges. What has become very clear is that the
services USDA provides, from eliminating foodborne pathogens to
protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases to
encouraging farm practices that stress conservation--all are
interrelated and must continue to be carefully and
comprehensively coordinated. We can do more to examine whether
Federal food safety agencies can improve the services they
provide, but this should be done by a careful step-by-step
process and by continued coordination with other agencies
involved in the food safety system.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
discuss our Nation's food safety system and structure, and I
look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Dr. Murano. I will have some
questions. Dr. Schwetz, from the FDA.
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD SCHWETZ, PH.D., D.V.M.,\1\ ACTING
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY
JOSEPH LEVITT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED
NUTRITION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Schwetz. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Bernard
Schwetz, the Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food
and Drug Administration. I am appearing here today on behalf of
the Department of Health and Human Services. Thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the Federal food safety system. Ensuring
the safety of the food supply is a top priority for HHS. I am
pleased to be here today with my colleague from USDA, Dr. Elsa
Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Schwetz appears in the Appendix
on page 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American food supply does continue to be the strongest
and the safest in the world. Great strides have been made in
recent years that have strengthened the Federal food safety
system. The Federal food safety program includes new
surveillance systems, better prevention programs, faster
outbreak response, enhanced education and better coordinated
and focused research and risk-assessment activities. Food
safety agencies are working more closely together than ever
before, but our world is constantly changing and we must
continue to change with it. Indeed, we cannot rest until we
have built a strong and credible food safety system that
addresses the full range of food safety issues, one that is
built on scientific expertise, that is risk-based and
recognizes and responds to new risks, that provides a critical
inspection presence, that has the same level of protection to
consumers from both domestic and imported foods, that
efficiently stewards new technologies to the market and that
effectively educates and communicates with consumers.
Within HHS, the Food and Drug Administration has
jurisdiction over 80 percent of domestic and imported foods
that are marketed in interstate commerce. This jurisdiction
includes all food products except meat, poultry, and egg
products, which are regulated by USDA. FDA seeks to ensure that
foods are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and properly
labeled. HHS's Center for Disease Control and Prevention has an
important complementary public health role. As the lead Federal
agency for conducting disease surveillance, CDC monitors the
occurrence of illness in the United States attributable to the
food supply.
The disease surveillance systems coordinated by CDC are an
essential information network for providing early warnings
about dangers in the food supply, for demonstrating progress in
reducing foodborne illness and for indicating new or changing
patterns of foodborne illness. Both the FDA and CDC work
closely with our Federal food safety partners and with State
and local health food safety officials.
While the current system is working, the system needs to be
strengthened to address the current challenges. The goal of HHS
is to work with our Federal and State partners as well as with
academia, industry, consumer organizations and Congress, to
build on the current foundation, resulting in a strong and
credible food safety system that addresses the full range of
food safety issues. The system has three simple steps: To
identify risks, to take action, and to measure results.
In identifying risks we must ensure a strong science base,
which is the foundation of any successful food safety system.
We must also develop, enhance, and maintain surveillance
systems that can quickly and accurately identify food safety
risks in human food and animal feed supplies and manage disease
risks effectively. These surveillance systems are the key to an
effective emergency response capability.
In taking action we must start with prevention. We need
strong risk-based prevention standards to prevent contamination
of all human foods and animal feeds over the farm-to-table
continuum. As these risk-based standards are developed, we need
education and training programs so that those in the industry
and the public can effectively utilize them to reduce the risk
of illness. In addition, domestic inspections of the food
industry are essential to ensure that the appropriate
preventive controls are implemented.
While FDA uses a risk-based system to prioritize its
inspections and now inspects firms that produce high-risk foods
on an annual basis, we still need to provide more frequent
coverage for all the firms. For imported food, we need a strong
inspection and monitoring program to ensure that imported foods
meet the same level of protection as domestic foods. For both
domestic and imported food, we need to maintain an adequate
enforcement program to be sure the rules are followed. We also
need science-based methods to measure results so we know how we
are doing. When implemented, the framework I have just
described would minimize foodborne illness and injury, maximize
consumer confidence and enhance global competitiveness.
As food may be a medium for spreading infectious diseases,
let me address the Department's approach to the challenges of
bioterrorism. The broad goals of a national response to
bioterrorism are to detect the problem, control the spread of
the epidemic, and treat the victims. Our approach to this
challenge has been to strengthen public health infrastructure
to deal more effectively with epidemics and other emergencies,
and to hone our emergency health and medical response
capacities at the Federal, State and local level. We have also
worked to forge new partnerships with organizations related to
national security. Our efforts have been focused on improving
the Nation's public health surveillance network to quickly
detect and identify the biological agent that has been
released, strengthening the capacities for medical response,
especially at the local level, expanding research on disease
agents that might be released, developing new and more rapid
methods for identifying biological agents, and improve
treatments and vaccines and improving information and
communication systems, among other activities.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss our food safety
program. HHS appreciates your continued interest and leadership
in improving food safety. I look forward to working with you
and the Subcommittee on ways to continue to improve the safety
of the Nation's food supply. I would be happy to answer
questions.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Schwetz. Secretary Glickman.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER, AND
FELD, L.L.P.\1\ FORMER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Secretary Glickman. Thank you. I am one of those liberated
souls that--speaking for myself. But it is a pleasure to be
before this Subcommittee and my senior statesman, Senator
Durbin, a great leader. Let me just say that I agree with the
statement that we have the safest food in the world, and our
safety system is the best in the world, and part of that is due
to the very talented workforce at FSIS and APHIS and the
Agriculture Marketing Service people in the FDA and the other
agencies, and I also would say things are better coordinated
now than they were 10 years ago among the various agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Glickman appears in the
Appendix on page 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the current system did not exist and we started from
scratch to put it together, it would not look like it does now.
We would not design it that way. We would make some structural
changes. I believe the United States needs fundamental
organizational change in the way the Federal Government handles
food safety. After working on these issues both in the House,
as a House member from Kansas, and as Secretary, during that 6-
year period when Federal food regulation underwent the most
significant changes in a century and faced some of its most
severe tests, particularly in the courts, I have concluded that
the basic structure is flawed and needs rebuilding.
Senator Durbin, I commend you for doggedly pursuing this
problem, and appreciate the opportunity. In my statement I
start out with a few things about Federal food safety statutes
now. These are substantive statutes. I am not going to repeat
them. They are in the statements, but things like we have
called for before, for example, the ability for the government
to level civil penalties, the ability for USDA and FDA to order
recalls which are not there. There is a need for FDA and USDA
to have the authority to act against food when epidemiological
evidence links it to disease, not just in those instances when
the food is infected with pathogens.
We need a lot more resources, particularly in the FDA, to
do its business, and FDA needs an adequate food manufacturing
database. Currently, USDA knows where meat and poultry is
processed because of Federal recordkeeping requirements. The
FDA does not have complementary information. So all these
things, many of which continue to build on what others have
said, I think need to be mentioned, because notwithstanding
what we do with organization and restructuring the Federal
Government, the substantive laws need to be strengthened to
give the government appropriate authority to do its jobs.
But on the regulatory structure, one of the lessons we
learned during the Clinton Administration was, short of
outright organizational changes the need for much greater
coordination across food safety-related agencies was a high
priority, and that led to a number of interagency entities, the
President's Council on Food Safety, a Joint Institute for Food
Safety Research, and other items. While all of these efforts
vastly improve the overall Federal response to this problem,
they suffer fundamental flaws that a consolidated Federal
regulatory agency would remedy. First and foremost is the
central control of resources.
While joint planning, communication and coordination
facilitate a united response to food safety, at the end of the
day, unless control over spending is vested in a single
authority, there will remain bureaucratic and institutional
obstacles to achieving the ends that we want to achieve. A
unified centralized structure brings with it another asset, a
central decisionmaking entity who is in charge, who is
accountable for the problem--an example is the Starlink
episode. The Starlink corn episode, while not probably a
traditional food safety issue, it highlights that flaw.
Most strikingly, many questioned the initial wisdom of a
split registration for this particular product, and the ability
of the system to keep the corn in separate segregated marketing
channels, one for animals and one for human consumption.
Regrettably, those deficiencies were realized in what happened.
Now, fortunately we have not seen that kind of problem in the
magnitude on the human side of the picture, but we have seen it
in a variety of animal-related issues, and it could have easily
happened here.
I have long felt that while we went through the process in
the Clinton Administration of improving coordination and
dealing with some of the substantive issues, that we did not
want to let a heated debate over reforming the structure
interfere with our primary goal. I urged a go-slow approach to
organizational revision during the period of enormous food
safety change that we went through in the last 8 years. I did
not want to either divert the attention from the reform
process, nor permit disagreements over structure to stop that.
But the fact of the matter is that the time is now, to
bring these functions together, and I am confident a successful
rationalization of the Federal food safety regulatory structure
will require bold strokes. A piecemeal approach will leave us
essentially where we are, with a fragmented, and duplicative
system.
Now, finally I might make a couple of comments about
terrorism and related threats. As we look at the threat from
chemical or biological attack or other terrorist threats, too
frequently agriculture and food received scant attention. We
got a wake-up call last month, not only from the savage
viciousness of the attack, but also from the new kind of
threats we face. For example, the grounding of the Nation's
fleet of crop dusters drove that point home.
While at USDA, we launched a multiagency review of
agriculture's exposure to non-conventional threats. Without
revealing the specific threats, nor the steps we are taking to
protect ourselves, let me simply state that the problem is
immense, as are the consequences and the effort we need to
protect from it. Consider again the Starlink episode, which I
referred to. That is a telling lesson of how quickly and
pervasively an undesired product can contaminate our food
supply, or consider a few years ago when Karnal Bunt first
infested this country. To eradicate this wheat fungus, we
prevented the farmers from whose land the infected wheat
originated from planting wheat at all for 3 years.
The point these episodes illustrate is that even
comparatively benign contaminants to our food supply can spread
dramatically, especially given the size and concentration in
much of our food distribution and processing, and may need
profound and long-lasting steps to recover. I should point out
that while agents such as botulism or anthrax affecting food
and water get a lot of attention, media attention--American
agriculture could also be gravely threatened by outbreaks of
more traditional problems like foot-and-mouth disease and BSE.
The solution partially lies with reform structures and
organizational changes. It also partly lies with good statutory
authority given to the agencies--fair statutory authority--and
I am confident that you will do that. In closing, let me repeat
the three points I want to emphasize with you: One, we need to
reorganize and consolidate our Federal food safety regulators;
two, we need just as urgently to make improvements to our
underlying food safety statutes; and, third, an integrated food
safety regulatory structure is critical to meeting the new
challenges of terrorism we face.
All of this is needed to ensure our highest priority, which
is continued public confidence in the safety of our food
system, which is the linchpin of both our public health, as
well as the economic health of American agriculture.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Secretary Glickman. Let me start
with some questions.
Dr. Schwetz, you said at one point--I do not know exactly,
but paraphrasing you--we should view food as a medium for
bioterrorism. I think that is really one of the elements that
underlies this hearing today. Can you give me a description of
how food could be a medium for bioterrorism?
Dr. Schwetz. Well, yes, I would be happy to do that, Mr.
Chairman. What I really do not want to do is talk in any detail
that would provide----
Senator Durbin. No, I do not want you to.
Dr. Schwetz [continuing]. A roadmap for people to do things
that we do not want to have happen. But because we have an
agricultural process that produces a lot of food, either from
the United States or imports from outside the United States
that is distributed widely, common food items that we either
import and consume as they are, or foods that are processed
within the United States, there are a relatively small number
of food that represent a large part of what we consume, and it
would be possible for one of those to become the medium of some
agent that would be distributed that would accomplish what a
terrorist might want to do, is to reach a large number of
people relatively quickly through some means that they would
not necessarily expect there to be a problem.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Murano, our lives have all changed
since September 11 at every level, governmental and personal.
How have things changed in the outlook of your agency at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, FSIS, and other food safety
inspection since September 11?
Ms. Murano. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think September 11
changed everybody. Let me begin by saying that. At the agency
we took a hard look, and are right now taking a hard look at
what systems we have in place and how to improve upon them.
Thankfully, we have 7,600 inspectors inspecting meat and
poultry in every plant in the United States. Having them in
place as a matter of our standard operating procedures, gives
us an advantage, as a public health agency, which is what FSIS
really is.
We are about food safety, and what we do is inspect these
products to try to prevent to the greatest extent possible any
foodborne outbreaks, which is one of the main goals of the
agency. We can always do better, and I assure you, again
without really saying too much as far as details, that we are
looking at what other ways we can improve our system. Certainly
the entities that I mentioned in my testimony, FORCG and
FERRET, have been crucial for us to be able to ascertain how to
better coordinate activities, not only within USDA, but also
with our partner in health, HHS.
Senator Durbin. Let me follow up on that, and just staying
with the food security aspects that we have now raised since
September 11, and without asking for any detail for the same
reason that Dr. Schwetz mentioned, has there been a gathering
of the various food safety inspection agencies at the Federal
level, of all the different agencies, to sit down and to try to
map out a common strategy to protect the security of America's
food supplies since September 11?
Ms. Murano. Let me answer that, Mr. Chairman, by saying
that as soon as I was confirmed, we had a meeting of FERRET,
which are agencies within USDA that have to do with food
emergency rapid response. We are working right now with our
partners in HHS to get FORCG to look at what its charter is,
what it is doing, the activities that it has done in the past
and how we can improve those. We have meetings scheduled very
soon, and we have had conversations with our partners at HHS to
pursue these avenues. So I assure you that we are extremely
cognizant of the fact that, now more than ever--and I agree
with the words that you said at the beginning of this session--
at this time of war, we have to work together.
Senator Durbin. Have there been special meetings called
since September 11 of these agencies, to talk about food
security?
Ms. Murano. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Is there more evidence of cooperation among
these agencies?
Ms. Murano. I can safely tell you yes, and perhaps one of
the reasons is a simple reason--well, two reasons. The one I
just stated is the fact that this emergency has brought us
together as Americans and certainly has elevated the importance
of these issues and has made us want to work together more than
ever. Second, because there are a lot of new faces, not just
mine. When you have a lot of new faces, people perhaps do not
have the past histories of animosity that might preclude
reaching over and meeting each other. So we have been able to
get together very well and very quickly.
Senator Durbin. Have you talked about coordinating
inspections? We know there is such a wide variety of inspection
standards when it comes to food at the Federal level. Since
September 11, have you addressed that possibility of
coordinating these inspections?
Ms. Murano. It is one of the issues that we are discussing.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Schwetz, same question. Since September
11, what has happened in terms of the food security issue at
FDA and what has happened in terms of your relationship with
other agencies?
Dr. Schwetz. I would reinforce what has already been said,
that we have had meetings between a number of Federal agencies,
even going beyond HHS and USDA, to bring agencies together to
discuss what are the areas where we need to be communicating
more effectively to deal with these kinds of issues, where are
weaknesses that we have where resources need to be put now to
strengthen----
Senator Durbin. Can you tell us any of those weaknesses
that we might address at the congressional level? Is there a
need for some funding that is readily apparent to you, in light
of September 11, where we should look at it immediately?
Dr. Schwetz. They are matters of the proper legislation and
authority to be able to do the kinds of things that we have
limits to now, and some of them have already been discussed.
Senator Durbin. Can you give us examples?
Dr. Schwetz. The ability to hold product once we have a
suspicion that something might be wrong, civil money penalties
to a greater extent than we have worked out these arrangements
with Customs and other agencies and with States. So there are
some legislative changes that need to be made, but primarily
the vulnerability of the FDA is not having enough people to be
able to man the spots that we need to have covered, to have the
inspectors, to have the laboratory capabilities to back up the
sampling that would follow questions of terrorist action. So
between resources and legislation, those are two major areas.
Senator Durbin. Secretary Glickman raised an important
point. I want to ask him a question about it directly, but
about the whole question of the authority to withhold food
product based on epidemiological concerns, as opposed to
pathogens. Is that another element or another area where you
see need for legislative change?
Dr. Schwetz. Yes, that would be.
Senator Durbin. So at this moment in time, if we suspected
or even knew that there was a source of food in the United
States that posed a danger because of bioterrorism or
epidemiological contamination, does the FDA or the USDA, have
the authority to take that product off the market?
Dr. Schwetz. I cannot answer that exactly, but I would
assure you that we would look between the Federal agencies,
between USDA, between Customs, whatever authorities we have
collectively, we would work as hard as we could to keep that
from spreading.
Senator Durbin. I am sure you would. Anyone in good
conscience would, but clearly Members of Congress, in good
conscience, need to give you the clear authority to do it.
Dr. Schwetz. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Secretary Glickman, that is a point that I
think we ought to spend a moment on. But your belief now is
that the current law does not empower the agencies to do this?
Though they might find some way to do it, it is not a clear
delegation of authority.
Secretary Glickman. At best, it is unclear, and USDA was
specifically challenged in this, in one particular instance,
where we did not have complete success, let me say. You might
find some general authority under some welfare clause provision
of the Constitution or some other agency, FEMA or somebody, but
I do not believe it is clear.
Senator Durbin. Well, so that we understand this for the
record, should we ever--and God forbid that we do--run into a
situation of biological contamination, acts of bioterrorism on
the food supply, it is your understanding--and I believe that
the other witnesses are in agreement--that we do not have the
statutory authority at this moment to remove product from
market, off the shelves, away from consumers, absent some
specific change in the law?
Secretary Glickman. I do not believe so. I think that
probably, if you had a national emergency with bioterrorism, we
would find it somewhere. But I do not think we have it clearly
enough to deal with the non-terrorist problem, and therefore we
would not necessarily be able to jump to the terrorist problem.
Ms. Murano. Mr. Chairman, may I interject a little bit
here?
Senator Durbin. Sure, Dr. Murano.
Ms. Murano. As you probably know, FSIS has the authority to
seize and detain products. So that is a very important
authority that we do have, and that certainly is one of the
ways that one can stop an outbreak from spreading any further.
Senator Durbin. And let me ask you to follow up on that.
Secretary Glickman made note of the fact that the USDA needs
authority to recall food from the market. You were talking
about stopping and detaining the delivery, but recalling food
from the market is not in your list of current authorities; is
that right?
Dr. Schwetz. That is correct.
Senator Durbin. Is that your understanding, Dr. Murano?
Ms. Murano. That is correct. I would say food safety is the
primary issue, obviously, with my colleagues at HHS and
certainly with the Food Safety and Inspection Service. When
there is an outbreak situation, recalling product as rapidly as
possible is extremely important. I think we all agree with
that. The real question, I suppose, is who should have the
responsibility to do that? That is something worth exploring,
and I think that is what the Secretary is alluding to.
Secretary Glickman. Mr. Chairman, I would just say most
companies, in my experience, would voluntarily and
cooperatively work this issue, but because of mass
communication and dissemination of food, and the logistics
problems, you could imagine a circumstance, even if a
cooperative company would be involved in doing it, you could
not get the food fast enough back into the hands of either the
government or the company itself.
Senator Durbin. So we have two things that have come out so
far, and one is the use of these epidemiological standards for
the monitoring of the food supply, something clearly that needs
to be done, and, second, the ability to recall the product
clearly in the law, where there is a national issue or urgency
involved in it. Those two things seem very clear.
Now, Secretary Glickman, you also talked about the
imposition of fines, and what are you alluding to there?
Secretary Glickman. Well, right now I would say the
Department of Agriculture has the ultimate penalty, the nuclear
bomb, so to speak, because what it can do--it could withdraw
the mark of inspection. It can close a factory down, which is
obviously a critical power. But, in some cases, you want to
move more creatively and quickly without having to shut a
factory down, without having to cause people to lose their
jobs, and civil penalties are not within the ambit of USDA's
authority, as they are in the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and, I believe, other agencies.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Murano, you made the point that you are
brand-new and, in that respect, have newer faces and less
baggage and less of a history. Your background is in science, I
take it?
Ms. Murano. Yes, sir. I am a scientist.
Senator Durbin. As you take a look at the Federal laws
involving food safety and inspection, do you see that common
scientific thread that weaves through these 12 different
agencies and 35 different laws?
Ms. Murano. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly if you are asking
me common sense science, I am not going to go there.
Senator Durbin. No one is going to go there based on common
sense.
Ms. Murano. But let me say that I think we all recognize
that using science as the basis for what we do for food
protection is the goal that we want to achieve, and risk
assessment within the risk analysis system is one way to
achieve it, as I discussed in my opening remarks. Following
that thought, I would like to say again that because food
safety is our goal and what FSIS does, because it is a public
health agency, anything that would improve the safety of our
food supply is something that we are interested in doing.
I would like to say one more thing regarding recalls. In
exploring this issue, we have to obviously think about whose
responsibility it should be for our food supply. Should it be
the responsibility of the people who make it, or should it be
the government's responsibility? There are some extremely
complex issues that are embedded within that question. So it is
something that we have to look at very carefully.
Senator Durbin. I am going to ask one semi-scientific
question, and forgive me, as a liberal arts lawyer, if I do not
state it very artfully, but, Dr. Schwetz, is there any
mechanism in place now where you can monitor contamination
beyond the obvious Salmonella, E. coli, to those new threats
that we are considering, the bioterrorist threats? Are there
ways to monitor these things?
Dr. Schwetz. Yes. The bacteriological and the other
detection procedures for being able to identify viruses and
bacteria and other organisms that might be included, those
procedures are, for the most part, available. Many of them have
been used clinically for many years. So the methods to identify
those organisms are available for our use. We have adapted
those so we can identify those organisms in food or other
places where they might come into contact with food. So the
methods are available to identify the organisms.
Senator Durbin. The last question I will ask of the three
principals on the panel goes to this culture between the FDA
and the USDA. This is a battle I have been witnessing for 20
years. Sometimes it is a friendly relationship and sometimes
not so friendly, but it appears that the two agencies really
view their missions in different terms, and one of the reasons
we do not have a single food agency is because there are those
who just love the USDA and every part of it and do not want to
give up anything, on Capitol Hill and the population at-large,
and others who feel the same about the FDA. But many argue that
they really are two different philosophies, two different
cultures that come to this business of food inspection. I would
like to first ask Secretary Glickman, what is your thought on
that?
Secretary Glickman. Well, Senator, I really do not think
that is as big a factor. I will tell you, after the Congress
reorganized the Department of Agriculture in 1994, you created
a separate Food Safety and Inspection Service and pulled it out
of the marketing and regulatory programs, basically--I must
tell you my experience with those folks at FSIS led me to
believe that they were among the toughest government regulators
that I saw, and people of high integrity.
Now, the fact of the matter is they were officed in the
same building and basically were in the same venue with people
who had promotion functions, as well. I do not really think
that is the critical problem here, because I think the system
can kind of trudge along probably all right with coordination
the best you can. I just do not think, given the modern world
of pathogens and threats, that you cannot do it very well
without some sort of central accountability there, and that is
why I think this needs to be done.
I think in the old days, this may have been a problem. I
really do not think it is as much of a problem anymore.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Schwetz, you have been at FDA for
awhile. What is your observation?
Dr. Schwetz. Yes, I have been with the FDA for a little
over 8 years now, and my observation is that the working
relationship is far different today than it was 8 years ago.
There are a number of things that have happened in the past few
years that have forced us to work together more effectively
than we ever did before, and I think for the most part we have
come to realize that we do have partners in other agencies that
we have to depend on, we have to work with, for example, to
keep things like BSE out of the country, and foot-and-mouth
disease. So the readiness plans that we have developed, the
science that we have shared, the people that we have kind of
moved back and forth to tap the intelligence that we have
between the agencies, there is a lot more of that today than
there ever has been.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Murano, you are the new person in town,
but do you see a difference in the mission between the FDA and
your food safety responsibilities at USDA?
Ms. Murano. Mr. Chairman, when I talk to my colleagues in
FDA who are scientists like myself, we are scientists and we
have the same view in terms of what we want to do to achieve a
safer food supply. So, at that level, certainly I know that we
have kindred spirits. What we have to do is forget what the
relationships have been in the past. I know that probably
sounds extremely naive of me to say that, but I am going to
give it my best and I know my colleagues at HHS will, as well,
because we are in a new day. We are facing threats that we
never imagined we would have to be facing and we are committed
to working together.
We are Americans. We have an incredible challenge ahead of
us, and we have to meet that challenge. This is the time to do
it.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. This is the third hearing that I have
participated in on this subject of oversight of food safety,
and I commend the Chairman for his long-standing interest in
this area. I am not going to go into my full opening statement,
but I would like to say to you, as a follow-up to this
hearing--I would like to request that the administration
witnesses submit for the record a comprehensive list of all the
Federal agencies involved in food safety, from the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service at the Department of
Agriculture to the U.S. Customs Service, along with a
description of the function the agency serves, the current
personnel levels at the agency, the personnel needs of the
agency in terms of both numbers and skills. I know that is not
new information, because I know from talking to Sean O'Keefe
allegedly that request has gone out to various agencies about
where they stand in terms of their personnel.
Senator Voinovich. It is my understanding the Food Safety
Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture is working
to attract health inspectors with a stronger service background
to improve the agency's oversight. I think this kind of
information would be very useful to this Subcommittee in our
deliberations.
In terms of questions, in the governmentwide high-risk area
of human capital management, GAO says the following about the
Department of Agriculture: ``Organizational cultural problems,
including resistance from the affected USDA agencies and
employees, have hampered department-wide reorganization and
modernization efforts. Further, the Nation's food safety
system, in which USDA plays a major role, continues to suffer
from inconsistent oversight, poor coordination and inefficient
deployment of services.''
Do you feel--and I am asking this of the administration
witness--do you feel that the human capital management as it
relates to food safety oversight is an issue only at the
Department of Agriculture, or does it span across various
departments and agencies involved in our Federal food safety
oversight system? If the problem does include the entire food
safety system, would a consolidation--that is what this is all
about--would a consolidation of food safety oversight into one
central agency improve this organization culture that is
resistant to change?
Ms. Murano. I would like to answer that by saying I think
we all know that managing people is always a challenge, no
matter what organization you are talking about, whether it
deals with food safety or it does not deal with food safety. I
am aware of great efforts that are taking place right now to
modernize the workforce of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service. I have been very impressed with the effort that these
folks have begun already with their new consumer safety
officers, to bring a highly technically-trained individual to
inspection plants.
There are also efforts to--and, in fact, right now there
are epidemiologists on staff, as well, who are dispatched in
cases where there might be a foodborne illness outbreak
suspected. So it is not, I do not think, any more the perhaps-
stereotypical view that people have held over what inspectors
are. We have extremely highly-trained people and have worked
really hard in that last few years to modernize the workforce.
There has been a reorganization at FSIS to better serve or
better accomplish the services that FSIS is supposed to
provide.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, there always is
room for improvement, and that is what I am here for, and that
is what the administrator at FSIS has as a top priority,
because that is one of the two things that FSIS does and does
very well--inspect our food supply in a way that is effective
and in a way that is done in a transparent way, and that is
accountable. That is the key feature of any activity that one
conducts. You must be accountable to the people that you serve
and to your superiors.
The second activity, of course, has to do with regulations,
and to base those on science is a key feature of FSIS as an
agency. So I think we need to start looking at what the agency
has accomplished in the last few years under Secretary
Glickman, who certainly has been witness to some of those
planning activities, and I am happy to tell you that those are
being realized right now, even as we speak.
Would better cooperation and some consolidation be a way to
go? We are very open to discussing any way that will improve
the safety of our food supply, because that is our commitment.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the fact of the matter is that we
have been talking about this--the Chairman of the Subcommittee,
what, you have been working on this for 20 years? We keep
talking about something is going to happen, and even though
there are some really good things that each agency is doing and
we have a fine system, I do not think it is where it ought to
be. From a governmental point of view, as I look at this
organization, speaking as a former mayor and governor, it is a
crazy patchwork that does not make sense and, to me, needs to
be reorganized to get the job done, to eliminate the
duplication, take advantage of the strengths that we have in
the various departments and get the job for the public.
I know some of the industrial people are worried about it
because we will have some kind of a super-czar agency that
might harass them or whatever the case may be. But I would like
you to tell me if you have seen any better coordination in the
last couple of years. I think it has gotten to the point where
you need to reorganize this operation.
Mr. Schwetz, I would like your opinion. What do you think?
Dr. Schwetz. Our feeling is that reorganization by itself,
Senator, is not going to make our food safety system a lot
better than it is today. We have already gained a lot of
benefit in the last few years by virtue of better funding, to
be able to do the work which represents the underpinnings for a
safer food supply. So there has been a lot of progress made,
and we think that even within the existing system more progress
can continue to be made.
If the decision is made that there would be a single food
agency, it is not a matter of reorganization. The legislative
underpinnings to determine the authorities have to be
redetermined. The right kind of budget support has to be there
to deal with the risks that we would identify are the primary
risks to deal with in the food supply. So we have to have the
right funding, we have to have the right laws, we have to have
the right kinds of expertise within that agency or within our
existing agencies to be able to deal with the risks that we
have.
One of the concerns that we have, also, is that even within
a large organization where you have an office of this and you
have an office of that, you still have different cultures
between various components of a large organization. So we would
have to work awfully hard to be sure that we do not have those
same kinds of differences between components of a new
organization that we all cite today as those examples at the
margins of our organizations now that make it look like we have
two different approaches or two different people looking at the
same problem. So reorganization by itself is not going to be a
simple thing and it will not be enough to really----
Senator Voinovich. Reorganization is never simple. I have
been through it several times in both capacities, but the issue
is, have we gotten to the point now where we need to do that?
What do you think of Chairman Durbin's bill?
Senator Durbin. Put him on the spot.
Senator Voinovich. What do you think about it? Is the
administration at all interested? Of course, they have got
their hands full right now. I am sure they are not thinking
about this problem, but where are we?
Dr. Schwetz. The new bills do address some of the problem,
but one of the difficulties that we recognize, for example,
within the Food and Drug Administration itself, is that we have
certain components of the agency that are specifically assigned
to food safety, but the way we are organized there are also
parts of each one of our components of the agency, that even
though they might be assigned to drugs or to veterinary drugs
or to other statutory authorities, that still involves food
safety. So it is very difficult to say that this is the part of
the FDA that deals with food safety, because there is a large
part of it that also deals with drugs, deals with devices, and
deals with biologics. They also have people who deal with food
safety issues. So that makes it very difficult to think about
how the Food and Drug Administration would work if the food
part of it was taken out and took out the research
capabilities, took out the field capabilities, all of which are
shared between food questions and questions of other products
that we regulate. The same question exists if you expand it
between agencies.
Ms. Murano. The administration has not taken a position on
this issue, but I would like to say again that my office is
open to discussion on this subject.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Glickman, you have been there. What
do you have to say about it?
Secretary Glickman. I agree with you. I would say that, at
a minimum, budgets, planning and accountability for food safety
ought to be in one place. Now, the devil is always in the
details. I was just thinking as you were talking, the
inspection functions--those of you who know the difficulties in
the relationships between inspectors and FSIS at USDA, and that
has got a long history and culture, know that that is a
significantly different relationship than certainly you have at
FDA, where you hardly have any inspectors at all. So, as you
say, this has to be done very intelligently. It has to be very
inclusive in order to not create a revolution in the process,
but that should be no reason not to try to do it.
I think that is why I think somebody suggested--I think the
GAO suggested you start at the inspection, try to bring them
together, because that is where the rubber hits the road in
terms of finding problem product. But I go back to this thing,
there has got to be some central budgeting and central
accountability in this process, as well. If you do not have it,
then it is not worth anything.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Let me ask one last
question of Dr. Murano and Dr. Schwetz. Since September 11,
there has been a heightened awareness of national security and
a lot of efforts to coordinate the U.S. response, and I am one
who applauds Governor Ridge joining the administration in his
new capacity with the Homeland Defense Agency. But can you tell
me whether or not either of your agencies, USDA and the FDA,
have been included in these national security briefings and
discussions since September 11?
Ms. Murano. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are very
much included, and that is all I will say.
Senator Durbin. OK. Dr. Schwetz.
Dr. Schwetz. Yes, we are also very much included with a lot
of the discussions that are going on between agencies and with
the National Security Council.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to
thank this panel for the contribution they made today. We
appreciate you coming by.
I am now pleased to welcome the next panel and invite them
to come forward: Dr. Michael Jacobson, Executive Director of
the Center for Science in the Public Interest; John Cady,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Food
Processors Association; Dr. Peter Chalk, Policy Analyst with
RAND Corporation; Manly Molpus, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Grocery Manufacturers of America; and Tim Hammonds,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Food Marketing
Institute.
Thank you all for coming. If you will remain standing
behind your appropriate name places, I will swear you in, as
custom of the Subcommittee. Please raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Cady. Yes.
Mr. Chalk. Yes.
Mr. Hammonds. Yes.
Mr. Jacobson. Yes.
Mr. Molpus. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Let the record
indicate that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Dr. Jacobson, would you be kind enough to begin?
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL F. JACOBSON, PH.D.,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Mr. Jacobson. Thank you very much Senator Durbin. My name
is Michael Jacobson. I am the Executive Director of the Center
for Science in the Public Interest. CSPI is an education and
advocacy organization based in Washington that focuses on food
safety and nutrition. We are supported largely by the 800,000
subscribers to our Nutrition Action Healthletter and by
foundation grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobson appears in the Appendix
on page 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have heard earlier, CDC estimates that contaminated
food causes 76 million illnesses and 5,000 deaths every year.
Over the past decade several notorious outbreaks of foodborne
illness, named after such companies as Jack-in-the-Box,
Schwan's, and Sara Lee, have demonstrated that unintentionally-
contaminated food is all too common, all too deadly. More
recently, the terrorist attack has spurred widespread concern
about intentional contamination of our food supply and the
government's ability to minimize that risk. Those concerns are
not unfounded. Last year, a CDC committee warned that
terrorists might try to contaminate our food supply with such
pathogens as clostridium botulinum, and E. coli O157:H7.
The recent National Academy of Sciences report agreed,
explaining that biological agents could be produced quickly and
inexpensively. We saw how easily bacteria can be used as a
weapon when in 1984 members of a religious commune in Oregon
contaminated 10 salad bars with Salmonella, sickening 751
people. Be it bioterrorism or sloppy manufacturers, we are
relying on old laws to regulate new hazards. The Safe Food Act
of 2001, introduced by Senator Durbin, offers a much-needed
corrective to one of the major defects in our Nation's food
safety system.
Food safety oversight is balkcanized among at least nine
Federal agencies, from the Department of Agriculture to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That fragmented
responsibility, compounded by inflexible statutory
restrictions, results in many gaps, inconsistencies and
inefficiencies in government oversight. For example, as we have
heard many times over the past 5 or 10 years, makers of
pepperoni pizzas get inspected every day, while makers of
cheese pizzas get inspected only once every few years, even
though both kinds of pizzas pose similar risks, I had not
learned until today about open-faced versus closed-faced
sandwiches, which takes this issue to ludicrous heights.
Currently, the FDA, which has just 150 inspectors to ensure
the safety of four million shipments of imported food, inspects
less than 1 percent of those shipments. Eggs, depending on
whether they are in the shell or processed, are overseen by
either FDA or FSIS, and a third agency grades them for quality.
Meanwhile, no agency is trying to prevent Salmonella
contamination from ever happening back on the farm.
For crops that are genetically engineered to produce a
pesticide, the EPA evaluates the safety of the pesticidal
chemical while the FDA reviews the safety of the whole plant
except for the pesticide. EPA's process is open and mandatory,
while the FDA's process is secret and voluntary. Frankly, that
kind of jury-rigged system is nuts. Professor John Bailar of
the University of Chicago, who authored a paper published by
the National Academy of Sciences, concluded, ``Our country
needs a single independent food safety agency. When
bioterrorism is added to the mix, the case for prompt and
sweeping change becomes compelling.''
A sensible system, food safety system, would allow
officials to deploy resources when and where they are needed
most. For instance, judging from CSPI's database of foodborne-
illness outbreaks, foods regulated by the FDA caused four times
as many outbreaks as do foods regulated by USDA. However, the
FDA has only about one-tenth as many inspection personnel, and
there is no way to transfer inspectors from factories producing
lower-risk canned beef stew to packers distributing higher-risk
fresh alfalfa sprouts. That mismatch between risk and resources
has led CSPI and other consumer groups to call on Congress and
the President to develop a single coherent food safety statute
that would be implemented by a single independent food safety
agency.
CSPI strongly supports the Safe Food Act of 2001, which, if
passed, would result in a major and long-needed upgrading of
our food safety system. We also would strongly support a
parallel and equally-essential effort to develop a unified food
safety statute.
Thank you very much, Senator, both Senators, for your
continuing leadership to improve food safety and for giving me
the opportunity to offer CSPI's views.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Dr. Jacobson. Mr. Cady.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CADY,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL FOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Cady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
testify about our ability to ensure food security within the
framework of our current regulatory system. My written
testimony, which I will not read, outlines in greater detail
our thoughts, not just on this subject, but also on the broader
issue of whether we need a single food safety agency. I will
make a few opening comments and look forward to your questions,
sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cady appears in the Appendix on
page 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to salute both you and the
Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator
Voinovich, for your leadership on food safety issues. You have
my commitment to continue to work with you and the Subcommittee
on how we can best improve the management of our food safety
regulatory systems.
Mr. Chairman, the National Food Processors Association is
the Nation's largest food-only trade association and its voice
on scientific, technical and regulatory issues involving food
safety. There are a lot of food-trade associations, as you
know, which reflect the great diversity and reach of our
industry, but NFPA's focus has long been on research, science,
food safety, manufacturing practices and emergency situations
for our 350-member food companies. We have special expertise in
the area of food security, which has long been a top priority
of our industry, specifically in the area of tampering and
contamination.
Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence in our food safety
regulatory system for protecting the integrity of our food
supply, both for domestic and imported foods. We believe both
Secretary Veneman and Secretary Thompson and their respective
agencies have done an outstanding job of responding to the
tragic events of September 11. We are confident that they have
worked closely with their regulated industries to ensure that
the systems are in place to adequately address threats to our
food supply. Through our association the industry has also
created an alliance for food security, which is coordinating
the industry's efforts and communications with Federal
agencies.
We recognize that the food safety system is not perfect. We
have long advocated for more resources for the Food and Drug
Administration to ensure it can perform its core mission. In
particular, FDA's information tracking system for imported
foods, called Oasis, needs to be updated. More research to
develop better sampling and testing techniques are needed to
get a more rapid response. We understand that the Bush
Administration is advocating more inspectors at our borders and
ports to make sure that nothing slips through, and I have been
told that Governor Ridge will focus on food safety and food
security as part of the new Office of Homeland Defense, where
he will be looking at budgets and the need for new legislative
authorities.
Given the vast powers that FDA already has over imported
foods, we do not believe, however, that additional authorities
at this time are necessary, and any emergency regulatory
actions taken during this period of crisis should have sunset
provisions considered. It is also very important that we do
nothing that has the unintended consequence of lessening
consumer confidence in our Nation's food supply. Our Nation's
outstanding food safety record has led to a high and justified
level of consumer confidence in our food supply. It would do a
serious disservice to consumers to send a message that our food
supply is unsafe, especially in light of the tragic events of
September 11 and the war in which we are now engaged. We must
all watch what we say, how we say it, and understand that our
words greatly impact the public.
On your proposal for a single food safety agency, Mr.
Chairman, we commend you for your thoughtful approach to a very
difficult issue, NFPA, however, is not yet prepared to endorse
this proposal. In fact, as I noted in our written statement, we
believe all the objectives that you outlined in the bill can be
achieved by better utilizing existing authorities, starting
with the Cabinet Secretaries, to both coordinate and allocate
resources and streamline overlaps in jurisdiction before
seeking any kind of new legislation. A new management layer,
which I see a single food agency to be, is simply not necessary
at this time. Rather, we endorse a single food safety policy
that would be implemented on a unified basis across the
existing agencies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Cady. Mr. Chalk.
TESTIMONY OF PETER CHALK, PH.D.,\1\ POLICY ANALYST, RAND
CORPORATION
Mr. Chalk. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you very much for this opportunity to provide testimony
on this very important subject. I am a policy analyst at RAND
who has spent most of the last 10 years studying terrorism. The
views I will be presenting are my own and should in no way be
reflected as representing RAND or of any of the sponsors of its
research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Chalk appears in the Appendix on
page 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last 7 years considerable investments have been
made in infrastructure protection within the United States, and
this has led to an increasingly well protected infrastructure
that now spans the ambit from conventional bombings right
through to more exotic acts of biological terrorism.
Agriculture, however, is one area where not too much attention
has been paid in this regard, and I would suggest that this is
problematic for two main reasons.
Agriculture is absolutely critical to the economic, social
and political stability of the United States. Certainly, in
economic terms it is of utmost importance. It is the country's
largest single employer, $50 billion is raised every year
through agricultural exports. Cattle farmers and milk producers
alone earn between $50 billion and $54 billion through meat and
milk sales. The disruption of this highly critical sector would
cause a tidal economic wave effect that would impact, not only
on the sector itself, but also on the individual and the
consumer.
For a number of reasons, agriculture does remain vulnerable
to either deliberate acts of sabotage or indeed, to naturally
occurring outbreaks.
First, the disease susceptibility of animals in general has
risen as a result of biotechnic modifications that have served
to lower the natural disease resistance of animals to
pathogens.
Second, there are many more diseases that are both highly
contagious and infectious to animals than is the case with
human beings. We know of at least 22 that currently exist. Most
of these are also environmentally hardy and many livestock are
not routinely vaccinated against them.
Third, diseases tend to spread very quickly amongst animal
populations simply because of the intensive and concentrated
nature by which they are housed, bread and transported within
the United States. A typical dairy can be expected to have at
least 1,500 lactating cows, with some of the larger facilities
having between 5,000 and 10,000 animals. Stopping an outbreak
of a highly infectious disease at any one of those facilities
would be very difficult.
We also have a proliferation of food processors--
particularly at the lower end or the smaller end of the scale--
that lack adequate internal quality control, may not have very
viable product recall plans; and also, largely do not undertake
effective screening of seasonal employees, which exacerbates
the potential of insiders getting in. I should have stress that
this problem exists at the medium and lower end of the scale.
And finally, the increased production of genetically modified
foods has also increased the possibility of extremists and
radicals carrying out acts of violence against GM foods, and we
have certainly seen aspects of that in Europe.
The impact of a major agricultural disaster in this country
would be enormous. Economically, we would have effects that
could cross at least three levels: Direct economic impacts
resulting from containment procedures and eradication
procedures; indirect economic effects resulting from
compensation paid to farmers who were affected by the loss of
their products--in the UK, the recent foot-and-mouth disease
outbreak has resulted in over $1 billion in compensation costs
alone being paid; and finally, international costs in the form
of protective trade embargos that are imposed by major trade
partners against the affected country, in this case, the United
States.
Beyond that we would also probably get a loss of political
support and confidence in government. A major agricultural
disaster would undoubtedly cause people to lose confidence in
the food supply, and it could also cause them to question the
effectiveness of existing WMD preparedness in general. In
addition, the actual mechanics of instituting a viable response
to a major agricultural disaster could elicit public criticism
in the form of reaction to mass culling and disposal
operations.
Finally, we could have social instability as a result if an
act led to a major public health scare, and here we are talking
about a foodborne disease outbreak or the introduction of an
animal disease outbreak that is also zoonotic in its
implications.
A number of areas do need to be substantially increased and
enhanced in preparation for public infrastructure protection of
agriculture. We need more diagnostic training. We need an
overhaul of the veterinarian curriculum with more emphasis
given on large-scale husbandry, better standardized links
between the criminal justice communities, intelligence
communities and the USDA.
I do support your own suggestion here of instituting a
single agency to stream line and rationalize the oversight for
food safety within this country. Thank you very much.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chalk. Mr. Molpus.
TESTIMONY OF C. MANLY MOLPUS,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Molpus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
this afternoon and compliment the Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee for giving us this opportunity for an exchange of
views on the important issue of food safety. The testimony I am
providing this afternoon is endorsed by a number of additional
food trade organizations, specifically, the American Frozen
Food Institute, the American Bakers Association, International
Dairy Foods Association, and the Snack Food Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Molpus appears in the Appendix on
page 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMA-member companies make and market the world's best known
brands of foods and beverages around the world. Our members
represent approximately 90 percent of the branded food and
beverage products sold in the United States. So nothing is more
fundamental or has a higher priority for us than food safety.
The United States, as the Chairman indicated in his opening
remarks, has the safest, most abundant and varied food supply
in the world. We have achieved this enviable position, not by
luck or accident, but through the commitment of the food and
agriculture industries and generations of dedicated public
servants. The achievements of this partnership are reflected in
the high confidence that American consumers have in the safety
of their food supply. According to the Gallup organization, 82
percent of consumers have confidence that the Federal
Government adequately ensures the safety of food. That consumer
confidence is not misplaced. We do, in fact, have a remarkably
good food safety record.
The system we have is not perfect however, and it can be
enhanced, but before we embark on a radical restructuring of
the food safety regulatory system, we believe we should be
absolutely convinced that there is no better way to address the
issues of concern. During the Clinton Administration, the
President's Council on Food Safety studied this issue and
concluded that, ``Reorganization by itself will not
significantly change the food safety system's capability to
assure public health protection,'' and that, ``No single
structure for the food safety system provides a perfect
solution.''
Today's food safety system has evolved into a sophisticated
science-based system that appropriately allocates
responsibility among several Federal agencies. The allocation
of responsibility among multiple agencies is not inherently
wrong or misguided. Rather, it reflects the informed judgment
of lawmakers and government food safety officials over many
decades that different sectors of the food supply present
different challenges and, thus, call for different inspection
expertise and different focus of regulatory resources. When
fundamentally different regulatory systems are called for,
dividing responsibility among agencies represents a logical
approach. In short, food safety regulation is not a one-size-
fits-all situation.
We should not underestimate the challenges that would be
faced in combining all food safety regulatory activities. From
the experience of many of our member companies, it is difficult
and disruptive to implement a merger. Combining organizations
inherently means a period of uncertainty, distraction, loss of
focus and efficiency. Now, perhaps more than any time in our
history, we need to stay focused on the job at hand. Having
said that, this does not mean that we seek to maintain the
status quo. There is room for improvement of our current system
and we have four recommendations.
First, consumers in the food industry are best served by
strong food safety agencies which develop policy based on sound
science. I would like to focus particularly on FDA. Although
the responsibilities of the FDA have increased dramatically
over the last several decades, the funds appropriated to FDA
for its food safety-related functions have failed to keep pace.
GMA has already taken a leadership role in this area. For some
time we have provided leadership to a food industry coalition
whose objective is to increase the awareness of more resources
at FDA.
We have at GMA a board-led task force of CEOs committed to
helping assure that the case for additional FDA resources is
made. For the past several years GMA has urged Congress to
fully fund increases in FDA's budget for food safety, and I
think it is worthwhile mentioning today that the Congress, with
the help of several appropriators on the Subcommittee,
including the Chairman, is about to, for the first time,
approve the FDA's full budget request.
Second, our food safety system must emphasize science and
research. We must identify and fight the true causes of
foodborne illness with the right scientific weapons. Good
science has always been a critical component of sound food
safety regulation, and it is incumbent, therefore, on all of us
with the shared commitment to effective food safety regulations
to think creatively about ways to bring more science to FDA,
and better scientists. We might do this through a fellowship
program, such as what doctors go through at NIH and come out of
NIH. We might have a fellowship program bringing young
scientists to FDA.
Third, collaboration, coordination and consultation should
be a full-time commitment for all our Federal and State
regulators. The Secretaries should make it absolutely clear as
they carry out their shared missions that their job is to
eliminate duplications and inefficiencies. A good example has
been the joint agency work on food-safety research.
Fourth and finally, one of the most dramatic changes that
occurred with regard to our food-safety supplies is the extent
to which we now have a global marketplace. FDA regulated
products enter the United States from more than 100 countries.
We must ensure that our regulatory agencies have more resources
and tools to effectively regulate imported products.
In conclusion, GMA and its member companies are firmly
committed to the continued integrity and effectiveness of our
food safety regulatory system. No one has a greater stake in
the credibility of the system than our member companies. We are
open to considering a wide range of ideas and proposals to
improve our current systems. But before we scrap a system that
is regarded as the best in the world, we should fully explore
strategies to enhance the system through adequate funding,
better coordination, the best science, and continued
innovation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Molpus. Mr. Hammonds.
TESTIMONY OF TIM HAMMONDS,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE
Mr. Hammonds. Chairman Durbin and Senator Voinovich, thank
you for inviting me here today. My name is Tim Hammonds and I
am the president and CEO of the Food Marketing Institute. FMI
is the national trade association representing the retail
supermarkets and food distribution industry. I will summarize
here today, but with your permission, will submit my full
statement along with FMI's board-adopted policy in support of
designating a single food agency for your record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hammonds with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our view, this hearing is especially timely because our
current Federal food safety system is ill-equipped to deal with
today's challenges. Clearly, no one now designing a regulatory
system to maintain the wholesomeness and integrity of our food
would ever design anything remotely resembling what we have
today. The case for designating a single food agency, then
centralizing resources and responsibility, was compelling in
May of the year 2001 when FMI's board of directors adopted that
position. The need for such a system now is imperative.
We believe this could be accomplished without disturbing
the oversight authority of the current committees of
jurisdiction in the House and the Senate. You will note that we
are on record in support of designating a single food agency,
not in support of creating an entirely new agency. We believe
too much expertise would be lost, too much of our existing
credibility would be squandered, and too much time would be
wasted if we attempt to create an entirely new agency from
scratch. In our view, the best course of action would be to
centralize resources, responsibility and authority within one
of the existing agencies, then elevate the status of this group
to a level appropriate to our new challenges.
In the wake of the attacks on America on September 11, we
have begun to look for vulnerable areas in our society. The
safety of our food supply is a legitimate subject for inquiry,
but under that microscope, it is clear that now when additional
funds are needed to ensure food security, we can ill afford the
current system's lack of coordination and the resulting waste
of resources. Should a crisis arise, either real or
manufactured as a hoax, the deficiencies of our current system
would become glaringly obvious. For example, let's assume a
tampering hoax is staged. The public needs rapid reassurance
from a credible source. Under current policy that could easily
involve multiple government agencies.
Since it is rare that a single agency has complete
jurisdiction over the entire scope of a major food safety
problem, it has been our experience that none of the agencies
step forward in times of crisis. It becomes impossible to find
a spokesperson who can rapidly clarify the facts and reassure
the public. Far more typically, the public is faced with a
lengthy delay while our overlapping bureaucracies creep into
some sort of action, culminating eventually in a message of
reassurance to the public.
To the issue of whether a coordinator would be enough to
oversee the existing agencies, we have an open mind on that,
but we are doubtful. Although some improvements could certainly
be made, there would still be overlapping jurisdictions and
gaps.
Let me emphasize that none of this is due to the lack of
skill or dedication of those working within our various food
safety agencies. Quoting from the 1998 report of the commission
to ensure safe food from production to consumption, ``These are
dedicated, capable people, but they operate within an
institutional framework that is out of date and poorly designed
to accomplish the critical goals that food safety regulation in
this field must achieve. The increasing complexity of food
production and delivery and the exploding internationalization
of the U.S. food supply impose added pressures on the Federal
regulatory apparatus which was constructed in similar times.''
Our FMI board of directors is open to other solutions that
would improve food safety oversight; however, we find it
difficult to come up with a simpler or more direct approach
than designating a single food safety agency. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Members of your Subcommittee, for the opportunity
to speak with you today on behalf of the members of the Food
Marketing Institute.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Hammonds.
I would like to ask Mr. Cady and Mr. Molpus a question,
because from your testimony you appear to be skeptical of this
notion--I guess that is a kind way of putting it, but let me
just ask you this, Mr. Cady, first: Do you agree that what ever
food safety inspection standard we have, it should be based on
science?
Mr. Cady. Well, coming from a science organization, sir,
the answer is obviously yes. It needs to be based on science.
It needs to be risk-based. It needs to be properly budgeted
for, which we have not done over the years, especially in the
FDA arena. It also needs to be one that has a policy that
emanates from science and risk assessment, that is permeated
throughout a unified food safety system.
Senator Durbin. Do you think our current system is based on
science?
Mr. Cady. I believe that the majority of our system is
currently based on science, but I caution that I do not believe
we have gotten far enough into the risk-assessment arena, where
we can make better use of the resources that we do have
available. But I think the science that is done by the agencies
has improved tremendously over the years and I think that the
agencies coordinating activities are making it even better.
Senator Durbin. Can you then tell me the scientific basis
for daily inspections at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
quadrennial inspections through the Food and Drug
Administration?
Mr. Cady. Well, I think, again, if you look at the risk
involved in the Department of Agriculture inspections--and
there are historic issues, sir, that I am not saying we cannot
take care of and that the department could not make better--but
there are historic issues based on animals that are being
processed. Eighty percent of my members' food, however, is not
regulated by FSIS, and so you look at--Mr. Jacobson even
mentioned--somebody who is making a high-acid tomato product in
Ohio, as an example. Is that the same as some other product
that perhaps has more risk than that does? I think we have not
made good use of that particular tool in the risk-assessment
area.
Senator Durbin. You have made several points and I do not
want to blend them together. I am trying to keep them separate.
The point about funding, adequate inspection and the like is
certainly one that no one argues with, I do not believe. But I
do believe that Dr. Jacobson's initial point is the important
one here. The current system is not based on science. The
current system is so disparate in terms of the application of
inspection, for example, that it is hard for me to rationalize
why daily inspection of agriculture through the Department of
Agriculture, Poultry, and Meat makes sense, but inspection once
every 4 or 5 years through the Food and Drug Administration
still makes sense.
I have to tell you that I think what drove the USDA into
daily inspection was not the wisdom Mr. Molpus refers to, but
Upton Sinclair scared Americans into finally initiating some
sort of a Federal responsibility for inspecting meat. If you
ever read it, as most of us have, you can understand why.
Chicago has changed a lot, incidentally, since the book was
published. But, there just is not any consistent science here.
Mr. Cady. I disagree, of course, with Mr. Jacobson on that.
I think the science is there. I am not sure when you get into
the inspection system--what I understand you are saying is--I
think the science is there, how it is carried to the inspection
system, throughout the inspection system, I guess is what your
question is. Again, if you have limited dollars and you have
limited inspectors, you have to go to a risk-based system, and
that makes better use of your resources, and we have not done
that fully.
Senator Durbin. You said in your testimony no additional
authority is necessary. Now, that is a very broad statement in
light of what we just heard from former Secretary Glickman----
Mr. Cady. No, I was talking about over the ports and that
particular area. I do not believe--again the lawyers have to
argue this out and I am not a lawyer, but from what our
discussions have been on this with lawyers, we believe that
they can do what they need to do today at the ports in order to
beef up security.
Senator Durbin. Let's go to a specific point then, so I can
have your testimony on the record. Former Secretary Glickman
has noted the fact that the agencies, USDA and FDA, do not have
authority today to deal with products that have been subject to
epidemiological contamination as opposed to pathogen. Do you
believe that the law should be changed so that they have that
authority?
Mr. Cady. I think we have to look at those authorities and
we have to decide whether or not that is good for the system
and good for the whole food safety system. Please remember that
the industry spends millions and millions of dollars a year on
food safety systems of their own and we get into these
situations such as civil and monetary penalties, and criminal
penalties, which exist today for adulterated food. The question
I have always had is that when somebody goes out--and this has
happened--and makes a bad decision on shutting down a plant
under a mandatory system, let's say, what recourse does that
particular plant or company have if the decision is not
correct? Essentially they are out of business. So, my point is,
it needs to be looked at. If they need authority in that
particular area, then I am not against opening it up and
talking about it at all.
Senator Durbin. Well, I would like to ask Mr. Molpus. You
said something in your testimony--it is part of the record
now--and it says that the current system--you were referring to
the current system--reflects the informed judgment of law
makers and government officials over many decades, that
different sectors of the food supply present different
challenges and thus, call for a different inspection and
regulatory system. That seems to suggest that there is some
sort of divine plan here behind our food and safety inspection,
or at least a coordinated--let's use that, a coordinated
thinking and ``wisdom''--you used the word wisdom--behind our
current system. Do you find wisdom in a system that treats an
opened-faced sandwich different than a closed sandwich?
Mr. Molpus. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, the
Congress must find that to have some wisdom. What I think has
been said here numerous times today--and I think it bears
repeating--many of these issues flow from the fact that the
Congress, in passing the statutes that created the inspection
systems for food in total, created different statutes with
different laws that affect different segments of the industry.
Congress created, as you eloquently alluded to, the Meat
Inspection Act after Upton Sinclair's in ``The Jungle.'' As you
may remember, I was president of the American Meat Institute in
the first life where we met, and that is a different statute
than the one that is dealing with other foods.
And to your point with the questioning of Mr. Cady, the
intensity that we want in a meat plant every day, intensive
inspection that is mandated by law--that can be changed by the
Congress. It will not be changed by bringing all the agencies
together. We have a lot of fun poking fun at pizza. Pizza has
been one of the most successful products in the history of the
American food industry. It has managed to survive this quagmire
of government inspection. It has been a tremendous success with
consumers and in the industry, and combining the agencies,
putting all the agencies in one house, would not solve that
pizza problem. It would not solve, I do not think, the open-
faced sandwich problem. If there is any point that needs to be
made here today, it is underlying statutes--and that is what I
was trying to make in my testimony--it is underlying statutes
separately passed by the Congress that drive different types of
approaches to inspection.
Senator Durbin. That is why we are here today, those
underlying statutes and that so-called wisdom that brings us to
this point where we are so embarrassed today by what we have.
Let me ask you, as I have asked Mr. Cady, Secretary Glickman
makes the point about epidemiological contamination. Do you
think the FDA and USDA should have authority when it comes to
epidemiological contamination as it does for pathogens?
Mr. Molpus. Well, essentially we are not regulated by USDA.
I have seen nothing that makes me think FDA needs that
authority or I did not hear them say they desired that
authority. I do not think we have had those kind of issues with
the type of foods that FDA regulates.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Molpus, based on Dr. Schwetz's
testimony, I do not see how we can take that position. He has
said in his testimony that food is a medium for bioterrorism. I
do not want to create panic, but I want to be realistic. I do
not want something to happen tomorrow and hear, ``Why didn't
you even talk about it in Congress the day before?'' That is
why I think that what the Secretary has suggested is a
reasonable suggestion, to give these agencies the authority to
deal with bioterrorism. God forbid we ever need it, but they
should have that authority. Should they not?
Mr. Molpus. Well, I will tell you this, Senator, they have
never talked to us about needing that authority that I am aware
of. It has never been an issue in the regulation of the foods
that I represent. If it is an issue, then we are willing in
these particular times to sit down with the agency and
rediscuss and reevaluate some of these legislative needs. They
may be on an emergency basis, some things we need to do.
Whether that is one of them or not, I could not tell you today.
Senator Durbin. I think that is a reasonable position. Dr.
Jacobson, could you comment on that suggestion from Secretary
Glickman about the epidemiological protection?
Mr. Jacobson. I am not sure what the underlying laws here
are, but my sense was that Secretary Glickman was saying if a
food is linked to health problems without proof of a particular
organism, then the government should be able to take action.
And I think that it is patently obvious that government should
be able to take action, because it might take weeks or months
to track down a particular organism--like we saw with mad cow
disease. It is a new organism in our experience.
I would like to step back, if you do not mind. I am very
disappointed that the industry is not supporting the best
possible food-safety system. Yes, we need changes in the
statutes and we need reorganization, and I think former
Secretary Glickman was very clear about this. Neither by itself
will work. We need to do the two things sequentially or at the
same time, but move in that direction. If there were a tragedy
where you have FDA and FSIS fighting over whether the beef
broth was 1 percent or 3 percent beef, and so we do not know
who is going to regulate it, it would be a crying shame that
actions were not taken because we had this crazy statutory
patchwork and bureaucratic mess. And if we did have that
tragedy, I think the food industry and opponents of action in
Congress would feel extraordinarily embarrassed.
Senator Durbin. I think you are right. I am going to turn
it over to my colleague here, Senator Voinovich, and I will
just make one comment. I find that there is a resistance in
some areas to the changes which we are discussing. When it
comes to government agencies, there is only one thing that can
bring someone who is involved in this area around to my point
of view and that is leaving civil service. Once they are out of
the private sector, they seem to think that this is nothing but
the best idea in the world.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. In the high-risk series update published
January 2001 by the General Accounting Office--and by the way,
they put human capital as a new high-risk area--they cite the
Department of Agriculture's organizational culture, especially
in its role of overseeing food safety, as an example of an
agency that faces human capital challenges. Although food
safety is not deemed a high-risk issue, GAO has listed food
safety oversight as one of the major management challenges
facing the Department of Agriculture.
GAO has explained that they feel the problem is not
isolated to the Department of Agriculture, but rather than
identifying it as a governmentwide problem, they chose to focus
on the USDA. Now, these problems have been around a long, long
time. I would be interested, Mr. Cady, and Mr. Molpus, what
suggestions have your organizations made over the years to
these agencies, and what kind of response have you received? I
know you mentioned, finally, that they funded the budget.
Senator Durbin. This year.
Senator Voinovich. This year--but what recommendations have
you made and what kind of response have you gotten back over
the years, and what makes you think that now that we have an
additional challenge that things are going to be different in
terms of coordination between the agencies and the commitment
of resources that need to be made? You mentioned--I think Mr.
Molpus, you talked about consumer--more resources; science and
research coordination; regulated, updated products and so
forth. They are all out there, and what is really being done?
And how do you respond to the fact that it has not been done
and it does not require some new way of accomplishing this
issue?
Mr. Molpus. Senator, I think the FDA has made some
considerable progress. I think over the last 4 years there has
been a significant or a noticeable decrease in the diagnosed
cases of Salmonella and Listeria. They have set forth some
targets for 2005, which, in reduction of these foodborne
illnesses, they have almost reached those targets already.
There is continual innovation and progress. I think what we are
saying from industry is, it could be faster. There could be
more resources. They have been a resource-starved agency, and
with additional resources and the application of better and
improved science and technology, and given that we all say that
they are best in the world, I think they can get the job done
without going through the distraction of a structural
reorganization.
Senator Voinovich. But the fact is, they have not gotten
the job done. It is an issue of priority in terms of somebody
coordinating it and saying that this is a national problem.
I was interested in Mr. Hammond's testimony. You are saying
that we have had outbreaks. Why don't you share with me an
example of a couple of them where you could not get somebody to
step up to the table and clarify it? If we had something like
this right now, how would we deal with it in a way that the
public would feel confident that something was happening, Mr.
Hammonds?
Mr. Hammonds. Well, almost any of the outbreaks would serve
as an example. Perhaps the clearest was our Chilean grape
situation, which in hindsight turned out not to be a huge
problem, but at the time it was impossible for us to find
someone from the government willing to step forward and
reassure the public. But retailers and T.V. news cameras can
always find a supermarket. Retailers turned out to be the ones
out front on that, and the ones doing as best we can to give
the public reassurance.
I would point out that in the middle of the food
distribution system, groups tend to be regulated by single
agencies or have very clear lines of authority. When you arrive
closer to the consumer and you get into the supermarket, one
way or another we are regulated by everyone. So we see the
kinds of overlaps, the kinds of gaps and therefore, the kinds
of time we waste trying to get a credible analysis of the
situation and a reassuring statement out of the government. So,
perhaps we deal with a more difficult problem than those
earlier in the distribution system, but it is a problem.
Senator Voinovich. The manufacturers are saying the system
is OK, and those of you that are out there, retailers, say this
system is not working, and you're concerned that you get the
wrong information out there and you cannot move in on it and
this will have a devastating impact on your businesses. People
stop buying whatever the case may be, and it just ratchets
down. It is interesting with the airlines, the enormous
cascading that has gone on in this country in other areas.
Everyone is saying now, if you really want to do something
about the economy, get the planes flying and get them up in the
air and make people feel secure. One or two items like this
just have--it was the egg thing at one time and it just ripples
across. So, there seems to be a difference of opinion here
between Mr. Molpus, Mr. Cady and you, Mr. Hammonds, and you are
all on the private sector side of this thing.
Mr. Molpus. It is rare that we disagree. The point that it
goes to we have a different relationship with the agencies than
the supermarket industry and a lot of this goes to the view and
experience that we have had with the agency versus someone
else's experience. We have not had the experience of having
indecisiveness about who is in charge during the time of any
sort of a food safety crisis that we have dealt with. We are
looking at throwing out some atypical examples and coming to
conclusions, rather than looking at the vast majority of
incidents. It is fairly clear. You can talk about the pizza
issue, but it is fairly clear that the products are at USDA and
that they deal with them through the system and the products
that are at FDA and that they deal with them.
Mr. Jacobson. Do not forget the $100 billion worth of
products whose labeling and safety is overseen by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The Treasury Department does not
put this at the top of its list when you are asking the
Secretary for what the issues are. We have seen cases where
beer was contaminated with nitrosamines, which are cancer-
causing substances. Wine and liquors were contaminated with
urethane, another cancer-causing substance, and these
substances developed during the manufacturing processes. Wine
contains sulfites, which is deadly to a small percentage of the
population. It causes acute reactions.
When we went to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, they did not have the foggiest idea of what to do
about these things. It took a fair length of time before they
learned how to coordinate with the FDA. That may be at the
extremes, but we are talking about a lot of product being
consumed that falls largely outside the ambit of FDA or USDA.
That is something I think should be expressed in your bill.
But, I think Mr. Molpus is right. Usually things work out fine
and we do have a pretty safe food supply in this country. Most
people do not die of food poisoning, just 5,000 a year. Is that
OK? We need to be concerned about where the problems are and
maybe it is one-tenth of 1 percent of all the food or decisions
that are being made, but that is where the problems are going
to occur. That is what we should anticipate and prevent.
Mr. Cady. I would like to make a couple of comments, if I
could. One, my association is responsible for working with our
companies relative to recalls when they occur, and in the 14
years that I have been associated with this, I have never had a
problem determining or having the agencies determine as to who
is responsible or in charge of that particular recall. So, I
can just say that I have not seen that fall through the crack
in terms of responsibility.
You made a couple of statements earlier, both of the
Senators did, relative to why doesn't this thing work then, if
we think it is such a great system. I think it is like anything
else. If you have two companies that merge, there is a CEO that
drives the issue in terms of bringing those two companies
together, not only in terms of their culture, but also in terms
of their production issues, marketing issues. What has not
occurred in the government aspect of managing this system, in
terms of coordination and communication, is the accountability
taken over by, and I start at the Secretary level, to make sure
that the coordination and the communication exists. What we
really do is, we usually talk about it at these type of
hearings and the Secretaries may talk about it, but it gets
pushed down to the working level agencies that actually do it,
and it is harder to do that.
I think that we need my suggestion, in terms of trying to
clear up some of this pizza issue, which I love to hear about--
I do not think it is a food safety issue. I think it is a
department issue, in terms of who should be responsible for
pizza, which is a great product, but it is not a food safety
issue. But, I think from that you can get a lot more out of
this system. Are there some legislative things that need to
change? Probably. Are there some department responsibilities
that could be put together? Probably. Are there better ways we
can do risk assessment? Certainly. But, I think people have to
focus on it and carry it through, and I do not believe in my
tenure in this town that that has occurred.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the question I have is, and I
challenge you today, is to come up with those recommendations
about the things that you think need to be done in terms of
coordination, in terms of resources and some of the things that
you have talked about now and in your testimony.
Mr. Cady. We will do that.
Senator Voinovich. And, to see if you can get that kind of
attention given to it--I have, and I have been here a short
time--but, getting agencies to coordinate their activity around
here is very, very difficult.
Mr. Cady. Well, let me add that we brought up the EPA a
little while ago. One of the concerns I have with going to a
single food agency from a government bureaucracy perspective is
that I look at the EPA, and after 30 years--and you go back to
see what it was supposed to do and how much was supposed to be
encompassed in that--and I can tell you that in my
relationships with the EPA as a new agency now of 30 years, the
coordination and communication amongst and between is not
particularly good--I am not sure how it was before then. I was
not here at that time--but it has not been that terrific
because we have a new agency.
I also think we need to talk about food safety from a
political perspective, Mr. Chairman. Food safety cannot be
politicized and I am concerned about what a single food agency,
at the end of the day, headed by a politically appointed
administrator, would amount to, and I think that----
Senator Voinovich. If your analogizing it to EPA, I agree.
Mr. Cady. That is my point, sir. That is how I feel about
it.
Senator Durbin. I might just say in defense of the EPA----
Mr. Cady. OK, Senator.
Senator Durbin. The standards for air and water quality
over the last 30 years dramatically improved. We focused our
resources on a mission and we really achieved a lot. There is
more to achieve and you will find, I think, some bureaucratic
tangles in virtually every single agency.
Mr. Cady, you talk about a CEO driving this kind of
combination. We may have that in place. As quoted earlier,
Presidential candidate George W. Bush was in favor of this
concept that we are talking about today and I have spoken to
him about it. He understands it then and now, and I think in
the context of September 11, understands there is a new
dimension to it. I might also add, as I did earlier, I think
Governor Ridge is going to have some voice in this, as he
should, to talk about whether or not this is part of the
security of our Nation. I trust Tom Ridge a lot, because I have
known him for so long, and I hope as soon as he can get his
head above water that I can talk to him about this, too.
Mr. Cady. I think you will see that happen, and food
security and food safety, I think, is going to be a large part
of his focus once he gets organized.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Chalk, before we break here, let me go
back to some of the points you have made, and one of them I
felt was particularly important when it came to our
agricultural exports being such a large part of American food
processing in agriculture. I think the point you made here is
the share of products sold overseas is more than double that of
other U.S. industries. So one of the points I made early on was
the hope that this is not just a monologue in the United
States, but becomes a dialogue with other countries, so that we
can start establishing standards one to the other, with some
hope that we can harmonize the way we produce food so that it
is safe and secure as it crosses borders. I do not know if that
is the point that you are alluding to as well.
Mr. Chalk. Absolutely, and I think that any initiatives
that are taken on that basis are overdue and only to the good.
One only has to look at the numerous examples of countries that
have been affected by major animal disease outbreaks: Taiwan,
the United Kingdom recently, Argentina this year, to catalog
the enormous economic destruction that can be wrought on those
countries, not only in the term of immediate protective
embargoes, but the ripple effect that can go on for many years.
Taiwan is still suffering from the 1990-1997 outbreak, and
actually has not recovered. So, I think that any institution of
cross-border standardization has to be part of the overall
solution, particularly in a globalized world.
We are no longer dealing with countries that can view what
occurs within their own borders stopping at that border. We are
in an international system. Where the trading of commodities is
more global and rapid than ever. Therefore, it is incumbent
that we do have some sort of globalized or at least
regionalized standardization across borders.
Senator Durbin. Can you imagine that first meeting with the
EU when we sit down and say, in our wisdom, based on our view
of science, we think that a whole egg should be inspected
perhaps once every day and that a broken egg inspected once
every 4 years? When you get down to it, there is no way we can
say that with a straight face and that reflects the current
system in America.
The last question I have for you, Dr. Chalk, is you make a
point here about confidence in government, and I think what has
happened in Europe is instructive of where we are today. I
think there are some parallels here, because in Europe,
government did not respond to a very serious concern of
consumers, whether it was BSE or antibiotics in animal feed or
some of these other concerns that people had, GMOs for that
matter, and as a result the stage was taken over by people who
did not bring science to the party. They brought a lot of fear
to the party. As a result, I think, many of these government
agencies were discredited in Great Britain and in the European
Union. Now they are struggling to re-establish their
credibility.
Well, we have a new world, too. We have a new challenge
where I think consumers are going to look to us. What have we
learned from September 11 based on some of the things we have
heard in the testimony at the hearing today? What are we going
to do, as a government, to respond to what people are
legitimately concerned about? Sadly, bioterrorism is one of
those that is back on the stage. I hope we have a credible
governmental response so that people believe they can have
confidence, not only in their government, but equally
important, or more important, in the safety of our food supply.
I will just close as I started. We have the safest food
supply in the world. It bears repeating. We can do better and
what we have heard today are, I think, some suggestions and
examples of ways that we can improve it. I want to thank all
those who attended. I want to announce that the record of the
hearing will remain open for 1 week for Subcommittee Members to
submit statements or additional questions for witnesses.
I thank my colleague, Senator Voinovich, for joining me.
Senator Voinovich. Can I just make one last comment?
Senator Durbin. Certainly.
Senator Voinovich. I was quite pleased to hear that the
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration
are working together with the administration. That was very
comforting to me. I would hope that those of you who represent
the industry would be making your recommendations also about
things that you see that are out there that we ought to be
concerned about, because you are actually out on the front
lines dealing with these problems. I think your input would be
very, very important and I am sure well-received.
Mr. Cady. We have a process going now just doing that in
terms of the alliance that are running, in terms of
information, working with the government, working with both
agencies, so that the communication is flowing both ways. And I
think it is going to work well, sir.
Mr. Molpus. The conversations with FDA are daily.
Senator Voinovich. Good. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, witnesses. I thank you, Senator
Voinovich. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6804.111
-