    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF IMPORTED CONTAMINATED FOOD AND FEED
           INGREDIENTS AND OF RECENT FOOD SAFETY EMERGENCIES ON FOOD
                        SAFETY AND ANIMAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 9, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-19

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    41-165                      WASHINGTON : 2008
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                    COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
        Vice Chairman                        Ranking Minority Member
    MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
    BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina        FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    JOE BACA, California                 ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California        TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    JIM MARSHALL, Georgia                JO BONNER, Alabama
    STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South     MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
    Dakota                               STEVE KING, Iowa
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                 MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
    JIM COSTA, California                RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              Louisiana
    NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas               JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               York
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
    KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    EARL POMEROY, North Dakota           JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia                 KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    TIM MAHONEY, Florida

                               Professional Staff

                         Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff

                         Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel

                William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Minnesota, opening statement..........................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Lampson, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Texas, prepared statement...................................    38
    Donnelly, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Indiana, prepared statement.................................    39

                                   Witnesses

    Acheson, Dr. David, M.D., F.R.C.P., Assistant Commissioner for
      Food Protection, United States Food and Drug Administration,
      Rockville, Maryland............................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Petersen, Dr. Kenneth E., Food Safety Inspection Service, United
      States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..............     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    55

                               Submitted Material

    Safe Food Coalition, Washington, D.C.............................    63
    Wiley, Mr. Ladd, Executive Director, Coalition for a Stronger
      FDA, Washington, D.C...........................................    67
    Carter, Ms. Brandy, Executive Director/CEO, Kansas Cattlemen's
      Association, Manhattan, Kansas.................................    69
    Mason, Mr. Stephen R., Acting Assistant Commissioner for
      Legislation, Department of Health & Human Services, Food and
      Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.......................    71
    Becker, Mr. Geoffrey S., Specialist in Agricultural Policy,
      Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional
      Research Service, Washington, D.C..............................    60

      HEARING TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF IMPORTED CONTAMINATED FOOD AND FEED
     INGREDIENTS AND OF RECENT FOOD SAFETY EMERGENCIES ON FOOD SAFETY AND
                             ANIMAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Agriculture,
          Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C.
    Peterson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Peterson, Holden,
    Etheridge, Boswell, Baca, Scott, Pomeroy, Kagen, Donnelly,
    Musgrave, Neugebauer, Boustany and Goodlatte.
        Staff present: Rob Larew, Chandler Goule, Craig Jagger,
    Tyler Jameson, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, April Slayton, Debbie
    Smith, Kristin Sosanie, Lindsey Correa, John Goldberg, Alise
    Kowalski, Kevin Kramp, Pam Miller, Pete Thomson, and Jamie
    Weyer.

       STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Welcome
    everybody. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing of the
    House Agriculture Committee. I will start by acknowledging our
    witnesses; Dr. Kenneth Petersen, with the USDA's Food Safety
    Inspection Service and Dr. David Acheson with the Food and Drug
    Administration. I want to thank you both for joining us today
    to update the committee about the current situation surrounding
    melamine tainted products from China that have been used in pet
    food and animal feed.
        Based on what I have heard from USDA and FDA, I am relieved
    that contaminated feed does not pose a risk to the health of
    poultry, swine and farm fish that ate it, nor do the products
    from these animals pose a threat to the food supply or human
    health. However, the explanations from USDA and FDA leave me
    with the uncomfortable feeling that maybe we just got lucky
    this time. The next time tainted food or feed products slip
    through the very large cracks in our import inspection system,
    we may be forced to confront a much more serious situation in
    terms of animal or human health.
        As food and feed imports from countries around the world
    continue to rise, the rate of inspection of those products
    entering this country has declined. According to recent
    newspaper reports, in the past five years, as food imports have
    grown by almost 50 percent. FDA has lost about 20 percent of
    its food inspectors. Today, FDA is inspecting only 1 percent of
    the products that enter the U.S. food supply that it is
    responsible for monitoring. This is a recipe for major problems
    down the road and the recalls and quarantines we have seen in
    response to mislabeled melamine tainted products are minor
    compared to what we could see in the future if this problem is
    not addressed.
        There are many questions we need to answer as we move
    forward. First, I am interested to hear if USDA and FDA feel
    confident about the existing inspection procedures that are in
    place now. Are those procedures adequate to ensure the safety
    of imported foods and feed products? If changes need to be made
    or if additional resources are needed to make those changes, I
    think the committee should be aware of that.
        Second, I am interested in the issue of who bears the
    ultimate responsibility for the safety and integrity of
    imported products. Who will ultimately be held responsible for
    the melamine tainted products? According to news reports, it
    was common knowledge amongst Chinese manufacturers that
    melamine was routinely used as an additive to spike protein
    levels, yet no company or government entity in the U.S. seemed
    to be aware of it.
        For meat and poultry products, we only accept imports from
    countries with food safety systems that are equivalent to our
    own, giving consumers here a certain level of assurance about
    the integrity of those goods. With FDA-regulated food and feed
    products, however, we have no such assurance that producers in
    foreign countries are held to any safety standards, whatsoever,
    much less the kind of standards we expect from our domestic
    producers.
        I hope that the seriousness of the recent risk assessment
    efforts undertaken by multiple government agencies in the wake
    of the melamine incidents are not lost on our trade
    negotiators. Advocates of free trade have done consumers a
    disservice by failing to address the simple fact that expanding
    trade with countries that fail to enforce food and safety and
    environmental standards make our domestic food supply less
    safe.
        I do appreciate the efforts by USDA and FDA to keep the
    members of this committee and the public informed about the
    ongoing investigation related to contaminated food and feed
    products. However, moving forward, I am interested to hear not
    only how the agencies that reacted to and investigated the
    current situation, but also what lessons have been learned and
    what we can do to better detect and protect against
    adulterated, mislabeled and unsafe imports.
        I look forward to hearing more about the current situation
    today and to addressing some of these serious questions about
    the safety of products that we are feeding our pets, our
    livestock and our families. And I would advise members that
    their opening statements will be made part of the record with
    the exception of one person, that is my good friend and the
    ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia. I will recognize
    him for an opening statement and then we will proceed to the
    witnesses.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
    you for calling this hearing. While the committee has been
    correctly focusing its efforts on the Farm Bill, the recent
    contamination of pet and livestock feed warrants our attention
    and continued oversight. It is important to note however, that
    the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture are still conducting their investigations and there
    are still many unanswered questions. I appreciate the efforts
    of both departments to keep the members of the committee
    updated with the most recent information and look forward to
    learning the conclusions of their findings once the entire
    investigation is complete.
        As the representative of a district that is heavily
    oriented towards animal agriculture, I am always interested in
    any issue that affects livestock feed. And like the rest of my
    colleagues, I have been approached by family and friends who
    are quite concerned about the health and safety of their pets.
    We all sympathize with those who have lost their pets or who
    have pets that have been adversely affected. As we continue to
    learn more about this matter, we have discovered that in
    addition to pets, some hogs and poultry may have also received
    contaminated feed.
        As part of the pet food manufacturing process, there is a
    certain amount of excess product or ingredients that are sold
    into the livestock feed processing sector. As far as we know at
    this point, no one involved in the animal feed business
    knowingly sold or bought contaminated salvage material. Based
    on what we know so far, the livestock feed that had been
    contaminated was sold and consumed before anyone in the United
    States was aware of the problem. The fact and extent of this
    occurrence suggests that some attention to the food safety
    systems of our trading partners may be warranted.
        I appreciate the actions thus far by the administration to
    resolve this issue, specifically the FDA's recent decision to
    take the extraordinary action of detaining all vegetable
    protein products imported from China. During the course of
    sampling various vegetable proteins and products made with
    vegetable proteins, the FDA has linked all of the samples
    testing positive for contamination to imports from China. As
    part of the FDA's investigation, they will identify the actual
    manufacturer or manufacturers of the contaminated products
    imported from China.
        While the source of the contamination in China is currently
    unknown, I hope the FDA's detention order will send a strong
    signal to the Chinese industry and government that we are
    serious about this issue and will not tolerate violations of
    our food import standards. I look forward to the testimony of
    our witnesses and any light that they can shed on this issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and again want to thank
    our witnesses for being with us today. Your statements will be
    made part of the record in their entirety, so we would
    appreciate it if you could summarize the main points in 5
    minutes and welcome to the Committee. Mr. Acheson.

      STATEMENT OF DAVID ACHESON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD
             PROTECTION, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

        Dr. Acheson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. I am Dr. David Acheson, Assistant Commissioner for
    Food Protection at FDA. I am joined here today with my
    colleagues, Dr. Sundloff from Center for Veterinary Medicine,
    Dr. Solomon from the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Walter
    Batts from our Office of International Programs.
        In my newly created position, Commissioner von Eschenbach
    has asked me to provide advice and counsel on strategic and
    substantive food safety and food defense matters based on my
    knowledge and experience in the science of food safety. I will
    discuss FDA's response to the importation of contaminated
    animal feed ingredients and the impact of this incident on food
    safety and animal health. But first let me share with you some
    of the broader complexities and challenges we face in
    regulating our Nation's food system.
        At FDA, ensuring that products we regulate are safe and
    secure is a vital part of our public health mission. The agency
    regulates everything Americans eat except for meat, poultry and
    processed egg products, which are covered by USDA. FDA's
    responsibility extends to live food animals and animal feed.
    Through trans-agency cooperation and leveraging FDA public
    health resources, we are working to ensure that America's food
    supply is among the safest in the world.
         However, we face significant challenges in our mission,
    such as the increased globalization of the food supply;
    changing consumer expectations for all foods; changes in
    farming, manufacturing and processing practices; an outdated
    infrastructure relative to the increasing complexities; the
    increased concern of a deliberate terrorist attack on the food
    supply; and challenges in tracking food rapidly when a problem
    does arise. The melamine case we are discussing today
    illustrates many of these challenges we face and highlights the
    need for new scientific and technological approaches to
    advanced food protection.
        FDA's investigations into contaminated pet food and farm
    feed began in March 2007 and are an ongoing priority for the
    agency. As we obtain more investigative and scientific
    information, our assumptions and knowledge about the problem
    are constantly changing. The investigations have revealed that
    the underlying cause of the contamination was imported pet food
    ingredients which contained the industrial chemical melamine
    and melamine analogs.
        FDA has identified the source, the importer, the supplier
    and other parties involved with the distribution of
    contaminated product declared, at entry, as wheat gluten, but
    which we now know was wheat flour. In mid-April, FDA became
    aware of a suspicious shipment of a product identified in
    labeling and import records as rice protein concentrate that
    was also used in the manufacture of pet foods. Upon inspection,
    FDA detected the presence of melamine and melamine analogs in
    the imported protein concentrate and the finished pet food and
    began its investigation to track and trace all uses of that
    material.
        Some of this contaminated pet food was unknowingly sent as
    salvage feed to hog producers in several States. Additionally,
    FDA learned that pet food salvage containing contaminated wheat
    gluten was used in chicken feed on some farms in the States of
    Indiana, Missouri and Arkansas. During the past eight weeks we
    have aggressively worked to identify the sources and scope of
    the contamination, trace the distribution of contaminated
    products through the supply chain and assure their removal from
    store shelves.
        FDA's response has been a team effort in which we have
    mobilized more than 400 employees to collect pet food and
    animal feed samples, monitor the recall and take consumer
    complaints; conduct numerous inspections of manufacturing
    facilities and warehouses to trace the contaminated product and
    analyze more than 700 pet food and ingredient samples in FDA
    field labs and our Forensic Chemistry Center. Additionally, we
    have instituted an import alert covering all vegetable protein
    products from China in which all entries are detained and
    examined. We have dispatched investigatory personnel to China
    and worked closely with agricultural and health agencies in all
    50 States.
        Finally, we have issued a high priority surveillance
    assignment for our field staff to examine imported plant
    protein ingredients and finished products commonly found in the
    United States' food and feed supply. These products include
    wheat gluten, corn gluten, corn meal, soy protein, rice bran
    and rice protein concentrate. At this time we have no evidence
    of harm to humans associated with the processed pork or poultry
    products from animals that consumed contaminated feed and we
    believe the likelihood of human illness from eating these
    products is very low.
        This assessment is based on a number of factors, including
    dilution of the contaminants in the original protein
    concentrate as they move through the food system and the fact
    that the pet food is only part of the total feed given to the
    chickens and hogs. The assessment also takes into account that
    these food products are only a small part of the average
    American diet. The human health risk assessment completed with
    the input of scientists from FDA, CDC, USDA, EPA and DHS looks
    at the potential risk to human health from consuming meat from
    hogs and chickens known to have been fed the contaminated
    animal feed.
        This team is now compiling a scientific assessment of the
    risk to animal health associated with ingestion of animal feed
    containing melamine in its compounds. As an added precaution,
    we have asked CDC to use a surveillance network to monitor for
    signs of human illness that could indicate a contamination of
    the human food supply. To further evaluate any potential harm
    to humans, FDA is developing and implementing additional tests
    and risk assessments based on the toxicity of melamine
    compounds and the amounts that consumers could be expected to
    consume. If any evidence surfaces to indicate there was
    potential harm to humans, appropriate and aggressive action
    will be taken.
        FDA is examining recent incidents, as well as global food
    system trends to determine what changes are necessary to
    improve the safety of human and animal foods. We are focusing
    our food protection review in three key areas; prevention,
    intervention and response; preventing contamination through
    strong science-based, risk-based preventative controls with key
    partners; improved intervention, using modern technology to
    establish a comprehensive, integrated food information system
    to analyze information and detect potential product
    contamination; and rapid response to improve product tracking
    and related lab research capacity.
        We know that the future will require different resources,
    technology and science to effectively enhance the safety of all
    human and animal foods. We will continue to work closely with
    our food protection partners at each point in the supply chain
    to establish the most protective measures. Mr. Chairman, the
    animal feed investigation has been a massive effort that will
    continue until we are completely satisfied that the underlying
    cause has been determined, the scope is identified and full and
    complete corrective action has been implemented and found to be
    effective.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important
    food safety issues with you. I will be glad to answer questions
    that you may have.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I would like to
    welcome Dr. Petersen. Welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. PETERSEN, FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION
            SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Dr. Petersen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
    Goodlatte and other members of the committee. I am the
    Assistant Administrator for Field Operations for the Food
    Safety and Inspection Service of the United States Department
    of Agriculture. We do appreciate the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss this ongoing investigation of
    animal feed supplemented with pet food scraps containing
    melamine and melamine related compounds. I also am pleased to
    be here today with my colleague, Dr. David Acheson, from the
    Food and Drug Administration.
        Before I get to the details, let me begin by emphasizing
    that FSIS takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure
    the safety of meat, poultry and processed eggs products. We do
    not believe the current incident poses a threat to human health
    and we are not aware of any human illnesses that ever have been
    linked to melamine or melamine related compounds. Our mission
    at FSIS is to ensure that meat, poultry and processed egg
    products distributed in commerce for use as human food are
    safe, secure, wholesome and accurately labeled.
        FSIS is charged with administering and enforcing the
    Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection
    Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, portions of the
    Agricultural Marketing Act and regulations that implement these
    laws. FSIS also ensures compliance with the Humane Methods of
    Slaughter Act, which requires that all livestock be handled and
    slaughtered in a humane manner. The agency is responsible for
    determining equivalence to Federal standards at the State level
    and among our foreign trading partners.
        Essentially, our agency is charged with ensuring the safety
    of the meat, poultry and processed egg products supply once
    animals leave the farms for the slaughter and processing
    establishments. We inspect each animal at slaughter before
    applying the mark of inspection. We also inspect all processing
    establishments on a daily basis to ensure sanitary and other
    regulatory requirements are met. Our inspection personnel form
    the backbone of FSIS public health infrastructure in
    laboratories, plants and import houses throughout the country.
        In Fiscal Year 2006, the agency had approximately 7,600
    full-time personnel protecting the public health in 6,000
    federally inspected establishments nationwide where FSIS
    inspection personnel performed antemortem and postmortem
    inspection and processing inspection procedures to ensure
    public health requirements were met. This included the
    processing of over 46 billion pounds of livestock carcasses,
    almost 57 billion pounds of poultry carcasses and about 4.4
    billion pounds of liquid egg products.
        It has been estimated that approximately 60 cents of every
    food dollar in the United States is spent on products that FSIS
    inspects. In addition, during Fiscal Year 2006, approximately
    3.9 billion pounds of meat and poultry and about 5.9 billion
    pounds of egg products were presented for import inspection at
    U.S. ports and borders. FSIS also has program inspectors
    nationwide who conduct food safety, food defense and outbreak
    investigators and enforcement.
        FSIS has been working cooperatively with FDA on the
    investigation into the swine and poultry feed incident
    involving melamine and melamine related compounds. We were
    first alerted, at the field level, on April 17 and at the
    headquarters level on April 19 to the possibility that
    contaminated pet food scraps may have been used in animal feed
    by producers of food animals. Since that initial contact, FSIS
    has been assisting FDA with the investigation, including on-
    site visits to farms and daily communication with State and
    local officials.
        By April 26, investigative results confirmed that a
    relatively limited number of hogs had consumed contaminated
    feed. At that time, FSIS joined FDA in alerting the public that
    this feed had been fed to some hogs and assured the public that
    those hogs would not be allowed to enter the food supply until
    we could conduct the necessary scientific work to make an
    appropriate safety determination. Due to the limited
    information available, USDA could not determine whether it was
    appropriate to place the mark of inspection on foods derived
    from those animals and so we did not do so at that time.
        FSIS worked with States and producers to quarantine or hold
    animals until further notice. We also announced that if
    identified animals needed to be depopulated, producers would be
    appropriately compensated for any costs. On April 30, USDA and
    FDA announced that the agencies had learned the pet food scraps
    from pet food manufactured with the wheat flour contaminated
    with melamine and melamine compounds had been sold to a limited
    number of farms for use as supplements in chicken feed. As with
    the pork products, we believe that humans were highly unlikely
    to become ill from consuming products from poultry that had
    consumed this feed.
        Likewise, as in the case of swine, we initiated appropriate
    controls in coordination with our Federal and State partners at
    the farm level. As with the hogs, affected chickens on the
    affected farms were voluntarily held while we further assessed
    the situation. This past Monday, May 7, FSIS determined that
    the mark of inspection could now be placed on meat and poultry
    products when the animals were from farms where the feed that
    was fed to those animals tested negative for melamine and the
    melamine compounds. This determination was made after a risk
    assessment was conducted by scientists from FSIS, FDA, the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, EPA and the
    Department of Homeland Security.
        The risk assessment found that consuming meat from hogs and
    chickens known to have been fed the animal feed supplemented
    contaminated pet food scraps, represented a very low risk to
    human health. In the most extreme risk assessment scenario, the
    scientists assumed the unlikely event that all the solid food a
    person consumed in an entire day was contaminated with
    melamine. Even given that extreme assumption, the potential
    exposure was about 2500 times lower than the dose considered
    safe, well below any level of public health concern.
        As I have already mentioned, FDA and USDA have confirmed
    that scraps of contaminated pet food that contained only low
    levels of melamine were distributed to farms in a limited
    number of States and added to the swine and poultry feed. These
    scraps constituted a small percentage of the farm animal
    rations. In addition, melamine is known to be rapidly excreted
    in the urine of the animal. When exposure levels are much
    higher, as was the case with cats and dogs, the melamine and
    its compounds appeared to cause the formation of crystals
    resulting in kidney damage. There is no such indication of
    kidney damage in hogs.
        Both hogs and chickens known to have consumed the
    contaminated feed appear to be healthy. The assessment that the
    risk to human health is very low is based on several factors,
    including the dilution of contaminated feed from the original
    concentrate as it moved through the food system. First, it was
    a small component of the pet food. Second, that pet food was a
    small component of any of the feed given to hogs and poultry.
    Third, it is not known to accumulate in the body of animals and
    even if it was present in pork or chicken. Fourth, pork and
    poultry make a relatively small portion of a balanced American
    diet.
        Neither FDA nor FSIS has uncovered any evidence of harm to
    swine or poultry that were fed the contaminated feed. This
    dilution factor was an important piece of data considered in
    the multi-agency science-based risk assessment and helped
    support the conclusion of a very low risk to human health from
    eating the animals.
        As the investigation proceeded, we now know that in several
    cases, on-farm feed samples tested negative for melamine and
    melamine related compounds. Those tests were conducted in
    Federal and State laboratories.
        USDA has concluded, based on the human health risk
    assessment and the inability to detect melamine in the feed
    sample, that those animals, where there is a negative feed
    test, no longer need to be quarantined or withheld from
    processing. In other cases, feed samples have tested positive
    or we simply do not have a feed sample available. Those animals
    continue to be withheld from processing but are not yet being
    culled, pending the results of an animal exposure risk
    assessment. That new information is expected shortly, likely
    this week.
        USDA and FDA continue to work together in conducting a full
    and comprehensive investigation. As additional information is
    confirmed, updates will be provided and decisions will be made
    using the best available science with the singular goal of
    protecting the public health. We will also make the risk
    assessment available for public comment. The scientists that
    worked on the risk assessment are compiling scientific
    assessment of the risks to animals associated with the
    ingestion of this potentially contaminated feed.
        We do recognize how important it is to communicate with all
    of our stakeholders, our partners and the general public in an
    open and transparent manner. Throughout the ongoing
    investigation with FDA, we have been sharing information with
    State Departments of Agriculture and State veterinarians. We
    continue to keep trading partners informed through the Foreign
    Agriculture Service. We have been updating our stakeholders
    from industry and consumer organizations. We have been working
    with FDA to keep the general public informed. We will continue
    to reach out to our stakeholders, our partners and the general
    public to keep them informed as the investigation continues. We
    will continue to keep Congress informed of our ongoing
    investigation, as well.
        Thank you for providing us the opportunity to make these
    comments and we look forward to any questions you may have.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and thank both of the
    witnesses for their testimony. Now we will have a round of
    questions that I will start off. I think you folks have done a
    pretty good job since you discovered the situation, but if
    these pets not been affected, you wouldn't have even known
    about this contamination. We also saw this with the spinach
    situation, where until people got sick, we didn't know about
    it. So Mr. Acheson, you have been put in a new position, is
    that correct?
        Dr. Acheson. That is correct, yes.
        The Chairman. So what are you, Assistant----
        Dr. Acheson. Assistant Commissioner of Food Protection at
    FDA.
        The Chairman. Okay. And in your testimony, I don't believe
    you asked for any more inspectors or resources, am I right?
        Dr. Acheson. With regard to resources, part of my mission
    is to develop a strategic plan around food safety and food
    defense and a piece of that is going to be looking at what
    further resources we will need to get the job done.
        The Chairman. Well, I would hope so, because I hope the
    response is not to create another level of bureaucracy, which
    is what we seem to do in government a lot of the time, instead
    of focusing on putting more people on the ground. So that leads
    me to my main question for Mr. Acheson. The imports that you
    folks regulate have gone up 213 percent from 1996 through 2005.
    We used to inspect 1.7 percent of those shipments, in 2005, it
    was 1.27 percent and now it is down to 1 percent.
        There has been some increase in field employees, a 41
    percent increase, but we can't even find out how many of them
    are involved in inspecting imported food. In 1995, we know
    there were 595 people and we can't find out how many there are
    now. But even if you took all of the new employees and put them
    into inspecting imported food, you still wouldn't even come
    close to keeping up with the increase in imports that has
    happened here.
        We have a similar situation in FSIS, although it is not
    quite as pronounced and, at least in the case of FSIS, I think
    they have changed the way they operate in terms of using
    methods that may require fewer employees. How do you respond to
    that lack of additional resources and people to deal with this
    big increase in imports that we have seen?
        Dr. Acheson. I think you asked a lot of questions in there
    and let me try to sort of phrase it around part of it, which is
    directed as 1 percent of imports are being inspected and is
    that enough? What the agency has done is to use a risk-based
    approach to focus inspections based on where the risk lies. We
    would never have the resources to be able to inspect and test
    100 percent of imported food.
        So it is clearly important that we use a risk-based
    strategy and that is what we have done. Over the years, we have
    moved away from testing foods that are considered to be lower
    risk and focused on areas that are higher risk. Food defense is
    a classic example of that, where through the Prior Notice
    Center, we have set up a system which is specifically designed
    to identify and target foods that are considered to be of
    higher risk.
        As I develop this strategic plan with my colleagues at FDA,
    one of the things that we need to do, quite clearly, apart from
    building the scientific infrastructure for the agency, is to
    develop a sound, risk-based strategy that is going to focus
    both on imports and domestic foods to ensure their safety and
    security.
        The Chairman. So how would you do that in China? I mean,
    are you going to go over there and inspect plants like we do
    with USDA, is that what you are considering?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, again, it is not resource feasible, with
    the best will in the world, to get an FDA inspector in every
    manufacturing facility in every part of the world. We have
    approximately 150,000 manufacturers registered as part of our
    registration database throughout the world. That is aside from
    the domestic, that is just foreign. So what we clearly need to
    do is to strategize on how to ensure that what the industry is
    doing and what the countries are doing is maintaining a level
    of food safety and security standard that is acceptable to the
    United States.
        The Chairman. Just one last thing. I had a gentleman in my
    office who claims that he has got some kind of system where
    they can test the molecules and this would have identified the
    spinach problem. Are you familiar with this technology where
    they claim that they can actually find this stuff immediately?
    Do you know anything about that?
        Dr. Acheson. You are referring to melamine or are you
    referring to----
        The Chairman. This is any kind of substance. This gentleman
    claimed that this would be a big help to us in trying to
    identify these problems and apparently he must be having some
    problem getting people to look at it but----Are you aware of
    anything available in the technology area that would help us
    with this?
        Dr. Acheson. One of the reasons that we need and try to
    maintain a sound scientific research infrastructure is to get
    at exactly that. Our scientists and researchers need to stay
    ahead of the curve on the modern technology. They need to
    understand what is up and coming through attending scientific
    meetings, interacting with scientists around the world. We are
    very open to new detection methodologies and in principle, you
    are exactly right, if we could develop a detection method that
    was rapid, sensitive, specific and could be operated at a
    simple level by an inspector in a field situation, that is
    heading towards the perfect type of methodology. But it has got
    to be validated. It has got to be shown to work, so that is all
    part of building and ensuring that this scientific
    infrastructure--because what you are talking about there is the
    basic science components which are the underpinnings for sound
    detection and then response.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you and we will be very much
    interested in monitoring and being informed about your progress
    and hopefully, we will get something going here sooner rather
    than later, so thank you very much.
        Dr. Acheson. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Goodlatte.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Dr. Petersen, the USDA has made the decision
    not to recall the meat and poultry products from hogs and
    chickens that have been fed this questionable feed, but that
    has already entered commerce and I have listened to your
    statement regarding your analysis of that and your conclusion
    that it is safe. What level of assurance would you give the
    American consumer that these products are safe?
        Dr. Petersen. Thank you for the question. First of all, we
    made that decision after carefully considering the facts and we
    do consider the food supply to be safe. The facts we looked at,
    and I think it is important to understand them, are that on the
    first day, when we made the announcement that we were aware
    that some of the contaminated feed had gone to several swine
    producers, that is about all we knew, that there was some
    exposure to swine and so we took a very cautious approach on
    that day, which was April 26. With that limited set of facts
    and we took the cautious approach of not applying the mark of
    inspection to any of those animals, should they have come to
    slaughter.
        On that day, we were not certain that any of the animals
    had already gone into commerce. It was over the course of the
    next two days, over the course of that weekend, April 28, where
    we did become aware that there were swine that had gone to the
    marketplace. And during that intervening two days, we did get
    some additional facts and they were facts such as the melamine
    is a very small component of the pet food and the pet food is a
    very small----
        Mr. Goodlatte. I don't want you to--I heard your testimony
    and I understand the analysis. What is your level of confidence
    that the decision not to recall the products assures the public
    of the safety of the products?
        Dr. Petersen. Well, we are quite confident now----
        Mr. Goodlatte. Is it a high level of assurance or is it a
    low level of assurance? Is it, I think it is safe? What is your
    level of assurance?
        Dr. Petersen. It is a high level of assurance, particularly
    in light of the human risk assessment that was completed the
    other day.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Great, great. Thank you. Now, my next
    question relates to what I think is the wider public concern
    which is, if this got into our food system from China, then the
    Chinese are not doing a very good job with their own food
    safety. And so I want to know what message the administration
    is sending to the Chinese government that exporting
    contaminated products of any kind to the United States will not
    be tolerated?
        Dr. Petersen. Well, I will start and no doubt my colleague
    from FDA may want to mention their approach. Our message would
    be we are taking this extremely seriously and as we uncover the
    facts, the facts will lead where they lead. But the mere fact
    that this occurred and we are in this position of responding,
    shows we take this quite seriously and we are dealing with it
    through our equivalency system, which is a very rigorous
    approach before any country gets even approved to have the
    possibility of exporting any products to the U.S. China does
    not export meat or poultry products to the U.S. at this time.
    So that is our message as far as the approach with engagement
    on China on this particular issue. I would defer to my
    colleague.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Yes, let me ask Dr. Acheson about that. You
    have put a halt to all vegetable proteins being imported from
    China, is that correct? What are the terms and conditions of
    that halt? Is it contingent upon their making certain changes
    or is that subject to future negotiation? What is the status of
    that?
        Dr. Acheson. Thanks for the question. The status is that,
    as you point out, all vegetable-based protein concentrates
    imported from China are not allowed to enter the United States
    until we, at FDA, have evidence that it is safe to proceed.
    That evidence can be varied. It can be validated testing
    undertaken by the industry. It can be a number of factors. That
    will continue and we will continue to do that until we have
    assurance from a particular importer working with the Chinese
    authorities, AQSIQ, to ensure that the products that are being
    imported into the United States are, indeed, safe.
        Mr. Goodlatte. But at this stage in the investigation, do
    you have confidence that the Chinese government's food safety
    system is sufficient to assure U.S. consumers that Chinese
    products are safe for export?
        Dr. Acheson. At this point, that is part of what we are
    trying to seek. We are working very closely with AQSIQ on this.
    With regard specifically to the melamine, the Chinese
    authorities have made changes since this has occurred, with
    regard to making sure that all imports or exports from China to
    the United States and other parts of the world, I believe, go
    through AQSIQ to ensure that safety. Our team is over in China
    right now, working very closely with AQSIQ. The job is not
    done. We need to continue to work with AQSIQ and the Chinese
    authorities to further ensure the safety of imported food from
    China.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. The chairman has given me leave
    to ask you another question to follow up on that. The U.S.
    Department of Agriculture established equivalency agreements
    with nations that export meat and poultry products to the
    United States to ensure that the exporting country is meeting
    our food safety standards. Does the FDA have the capability of
    using a similar approach?
        Dr. Acheson. In theory, yes. FDA does have the capability
    of using equivalence, in theory. But I would like to point out
    that for FDA, the situation is significantly more complex than
    for USDA. We are having to deal with multiple products. It is
    not just meat, poultry and egg products. There is a huge
    spectrum of products that are under the control of a vast array
    of agencies, very often in different countries. I think, as we
    go down this road, an equivalence-type thinking or an
    equivalence-type approach is one aspect of what could be in the
    toolbox that we can use to ensure that imported goods, not just
    from China but from all parts of the world, are safe and
    secure.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. I recognize the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden.
        Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Acheson, I realize
    you have limited resources, but I have a few questions about
    dairy imports and particularly on India. I understand that the
    imports from India are averaging about $47 million over the
    last 3 years and their level of pesticide approval is much
    higher than that of the U.S. I am just wondering what specific
    steps are you taking to monitor imports from India? It has come
    to my attention that the domestic dairy industry brought this
    to FDA's attention, but there has not even been any sampling
    that has been done so far.
        Dr. Acheson. There is an ongoing pesticide testing program
    in FDA. It is part of the total diet study and part of a
    separate assignment that we have, looking for pesticides.
    Frequently, when we find them, we issue import alerts and we
    have a number in place right now related to pesticides. I don't
    have specific facts on numbers of tests of pesticides related
    to imports of dairy products from India at my fingertips today.
    I would be happy to get those for the record.
        Mr. Holden. If you get them, Doctor, I would appreciate it.
        Dr. Acheson. Sure. I would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Holden. Okay. And second, Doctor, I understand that the
    FDA is trying to accelerate Grade A importation of dairy
    products through third party verification, is that true?
        Dr. Acheson. With regard to dairy products, I know that FDA
    is working closely with a number of other countries to try to
    ensure that there is importation of safe and secure dairy
    products into the United States. Again, if you want specifics
    on the current status of that discussion, I would be happy to
    provide that for the record.
        Mr. Holden. I would appreciate that, Doctor, and again, I
    realize that you have limited resources and you are looking for
    ways to crunch the dollars, but I would be concerned about the
    integrity of third party inspections and so if you could get
    that information to me, I would appreciate it.
        Dr. Acheson. Thank you. I understand.
        Mr. Holden. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Neugebauer.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the
    chairman in that we don't need to create any new bureaucracy
    here. We need to make sure that we have food safety in our
    country. I think one of the things I want to follow up on is
    that other countries have been very punitive on the U.S. when
    there has been a question about the quality and the health
    safety of our products. For example, Japan with American beef.
    Are we taking a hard line with China for example, right now to
    make sure that they understand that if we can't satisfy
    ourselves that we are getting safe food products from them,
    then that could have some long-term ramifications?
        Dr. Acheson. Is that question directed to me?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Both of you.
        Dr. Acheson. Okay. Well, let me start out. First of all, I
    want to say that our focus is not solely on China with regard
    to imported foods. We cannot ignore the rest of the world. But
    right now, that is the current focus, on China. But whatever
    strategies we put in place have to be applicable globally and,
    as I said in my statement, we have got an increasingly global
    food supply and I suspect it is only going to get more global
    and diverse as time continues.
        We do already have systems in place so that when
    situations, or problems, are identified, we can put import
    alerts out there which essentially stop something from coming
    into the country. That can be done in a very focused way and
    the melamine situation is an example of that. We started that,
    as an import alert, on the two companies from China that we
    knew for sure were problematic. As we learned more about this
    situation as it unfolded, we expanded that to include all
    vegetable protein concentrates. In theory, I believe, we could
    keep expanding it based on what we find, so we can, basically,
    put things in place that will stop the problem.
        But I think the key question is how do you get one step
    further back? How do you deal with the preventative strategies
    in the country itself? Because the overall approach needs to be
    prevention Number 1, which needs to involve all stakeholders.
    It needs to involve industry participation, understanding
    suppliers. Where do you get your material from? What do you
    know about your supplier? And that is something we have worked
    with the industry on very closely with regard to food defense,
    raising awareness about your supplier through our alert
    program.
        Then the other piece is how do you apply that, locally,
    into a country going globally? And that is part of the strategy
    that has to be figured out. And clearly, we need to make some
    changes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. I appreciate that. Mr. Petersen, as you
    know, we were put through a fairly rigorous process by the
    Japanese on our monitoring process so that they could rely it
    when we said U.S. beef was safe and that we have safety
    measures in place. I agree with you. It is the preventative
    side. We don't need to wait until animals start dying or God
    forbid, people start dying or having health issues to determine
    how we need to monitor that. So what are we doing, then, on a
    proactive basis, of putting a lot of pressure on these various
    countries of saying that they are going to have to demonstrate
    to us that they have a process in place that we can rely on to
    ensure the product is safe when they allow that product out of
    their country and it is coming into our country?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, again, to take the micro example of
    melamine, we have that in place through the import alert. We
    will not allow importation or take people off that import alert
    until we have assurances from the country that product is safe.
    And again, it is broader than that. I think, possibly, one way
    to take that question is, which will be part of my analysis,
    strategically as we move forward, is do we need new
    authorities? Do we need to tweak current authorities to make
    sure that we meet that goal of prevention and ensuring
    prevention and pushing it back onto the countries who want to
    import food into the United States and the industries that want
    to do that. Because there is no way in the world we would ever
    get an FDA inspector in every manufacturing facility throughout
    the world. We just couldn't do it. And I don't think we should.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Does that also include some kind of
    verification of types of chemicals that are being used on
    agricultural products in those countries? Because one of the
    things I hear from fruit and vegetable people is that some of
    the vegetables and fruit that may be coming into our country,
    in fact, have chemicals being used in those countries that are
    prohibited in the U.S.?
        Dr. Acheson. It happens and that is why we have monitoring
    systems in place, to try to pick that up. The worse case is
    when you get human illness. That is the point at which you have
    got to respond, or animal illness. And then you backtrack and
    you figure out okay, we have got a problem. Our goal is to
    never get to that point and as I said, push it back on
    prevention; make sure that there is something in place that
    would prevent a product coming in which has been exposed to a
    pesticide which we don't consider safe. Then on top of that,
    there has got to be an intervention, inspectional testing,
    detection level to basically trust and verify in terms of the
    prevention. But there has got to be enough teeth in this to
    make sure that the rest of the world will pay attention to our
    standards.
        Mr. Neugebauer. After you have had a chance to analyze
    that, do you anticipate bringing something to this committee?
    If you need additional authority, do you think that is going to
    be necessary that legislatively? Do we need to look at some
    ways to give your agency broader powers to be able to interact
    in that way?
        Dr. Acheson. I would be happy to come back and report to
    you once we have made that assessment. Part of where we are
    trying to go strategically is to look at exactly those
    questions. And I want to phrase that in two ways; one is
    tweaking current authorities and the other is seeking new
    authorities. Frankly, we are not there yet, in terms of what
    that would look like, but I would be happy to report back to
    this committee once we have reached that point.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
        Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing. I think it is important. Gentlemen, let
    me quickly go to some questions. My first is for both of you.
    Frankly, this entire incident is troubling. I think this will
    remind people of the importance of our nation not being totally
    reliant on foreign sources of food. We have said many times
    that our food supply here in the United States is the safest
    and most abundant in the world and I hope this incident will
    sound something of a clear call for more diligent food
    inspection, as well as better lines of communication when an
    incident occurs.
        I believe the lag time between when these animals first
    started dying and the official disclosure of tainted feed going
    to the farm, was entirely too long. My understanding is that we
    first knew about it in February. It took a month for anyone to
    acknowledge it. So my question is this, wheat gluten and some
    of the other products that have been put on hold and the test
    lists such as ryes and corn gluten go into far more products
    than pet food. Can either of you tell me within a degree of
    certainty that this product has not entered into the human food
    supply chain?
        Dr. Acheson. Let me first respond to that.
        Mr. Etheridge. Yes or no?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes, I can give you assurance that the wheat
    gluten and the rice protein concentrate that we now know was
    wheat flour that was used to make the contaminated pet food,
    has not, to date, to our awareness, entered the food supply
    chain. I want to also emphasize, though, that this is an
    ongoing investigation and I cannot predict where it is going to
    go. That is part of what we need to do, is to continue to trace
    out the tentacles. And I also want to point out, in that
    context, that we----
        Mr. Etheridge. I have a very limited amount of time and you
    have answered that one, so I don't want to take all my time
    filibustering.
        Dr. Petersen. FDA, would of course, have the lead on how
    the contamination is moving on the wheat protein side of the
    spectrum. Everything we have seen as far as their investigation
    supports the statement that was just made. There is no direct
    information that we have seen that supports that it went into
    the human chain directly.
        Mr. Etheridge. All right. Thank you. USDA and FDA have both
    issued press releases that state that the risk to human health
    is very low. What does very low mean? And the reason I ask this
    question, I have a grandson who is two and a half years old and
    weighs about 27 pounds. How does that compare, that child, to
    say, a grown adult weighing 200 pounds? How does that compare?
    When you say very low, I think the American people want to know
    what does very low really mean?
        Dr. Acheson. Based on the risk assessment, one of the
    things that we look for is what is the margin of safety, as it
    is called, between the level that we see in the food and the
    level which we might expect anybody, infant or whatever, on a
    per kilogram basis, of body weight, to have a problem. And that
    risk assessment, worse case indicated that there was about a
    2500-fold margin of safety between the level that we were
    seeing in the meat and the likelihood of an illness.
        Mr. Etheridge. Do you agree?
        Dr. Petersen. Yes, we worked jointly on the risk assessment
    and that was using the most extreme assumptions that could
    theoretically happen, but are not expected to happen in the
    real world. A 2500-fold margin of safety is rather large.
        Mr. Etheridge. See, the reason I ask this, it is troubling
    because if you go back to the question the Chairman asked
    earlier, at the percentage of increase of feedstock coming into
    this country since 1996, with the reduction in the amount of
    inspections in that period of time, this is the first time it
    has shown up and it didn't show up until we had a death that we
    recognized in animals. I think I am understanding you now.
        We really don't know what else is out there and yet, we
    have increased the amount of imports substantially with a
    reduction in the amount of inspections. So my next question is
    this, is it true that Menu Foods, the first company to notify
    USDA that there was a problem, first discovered the problem at
    the end of February? And why was the first hold on these
    imported products put in place, it took a month to take the
    action to put it in place, to put a hold on the imports?
        Dr. Acheson. The hold on the import was, as I said earlier,
    expanded from the companies that we first identified and once
    we had identified who the company was, what the problem was,
    the hold was put in place and that has expanded now. Part of
    what you are getting at is the need for, in terms of response,
    is what do we need within the system to be able to get a handle
    on an illness, whether it be human or animal, earlier? And that
    is public health infrastructure, to get to where we can take
    action faster.
        Mr. Etheridge. I hope you will share back with us that
    need. My final question, with the Chairman's indulgence, I have
    a stack of material I have been reading and obviously, a lot of
    it is from newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times,
    with the latest one out this morning about the number of the
    pigs that are dying in southeast China by the thousands,
    outside Hong Kong. And they started dying the first of the
    year. Have you had any input on that, any response with USDA or
    FDA? Because the question is that it is about the same time the
    tainted food started showing up.
        Dr. Petersen. We don't have any direct information on that,
    but another agency within USDA, the Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service, remains vigilant on any animal diseases
    that could come into this country and so even if we were to
    receive product from that part of the world, which I am not
    aware that we do, their animal protection measures would
    immediately come into play with their is animal disease
    surveillance networks.
        Mr. Etheridge. The reason I follow that up is because it is
    from the region of China where SARS was, which refused to issue
    information then. Now we have got the same problem and I would
    hope you would follow that up and I would appreciate a response
    back to the committee on that.
        Dr. Petersen. For equivalency with meat and poultry, if we
    have a country that is equivalent, if an issue arises where
    there is some animal disease that occurs, we can suspend any
    exports until that issue is mitigated and we have done so in
    the past.
        Mr. Etheridge. Are you telling me we have no equivalency
    with China?
        Dr. Petersen. On China for equivalency on the meat and
    poultry side, it is strictly related to cooked product and they
    are not bringing any into this country at this time. It must be
    cooked, because that was the determination made by the Animal
    and Plant Health Inspection Service, that it needed to be
    cooked before it came in, so they are eligible, but nothing is
    coming in.
        Mr. Etheridge. Okay. I would like to follow it up later,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from
    Louisiana, Mr. Boustany.
        Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    gentlemen, for your thoughtful testimony. First question, given
    that the investigation is still ongoing, are the Chinese
    cooperating?
        Dr. Acheson. Very much so, yes.
        Mr. Boustany. So you are satisfied with the level of
    cooperation?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes, AQSIQ has been very helpful. As you are
    probably aware, when our investigators first went over there,
    there was a holiday in China. They basically came in from their
    vacations to support us and assist us in the investigation.
        Mr. Boustany. Thank you. Dr. Acheson. I appreciate your
    strategic approach to this, because obviously, it would be very
    impracticable and costly to provide inspectors across the board
    for 100 percent inspection, so the strategic approach that you
    outlined was good. I am curious to know whether or not there is
    a very vigorous, broad interagency process involved in this
    strategic planning. In other words, beyond the two agencies
    represented here today, is the State Department, our
    intelligence community involved in this? Department of Defense,
    perhaps? Commerce, Treasury, involved in looking at formulating
    a very strong and vigorous strategic approach to this problem?
    There are many, many ramifications, obviously, but if you could
    give me a straightforward answer on that, I would appreciate
    it.
        Dr. Acheson. At this stage, no. It is early days, but
    clearly, this goes beyond just FDA and it involves many of the
    agencies that you have just outlined and there is going to be a
    need to interact with them, share the information with them,
    share the approach with them, get their support and get their
    help to put it in place.
        Mr. Boustany. I would submit that if you need a push from
    Congress, I would certainly be willing to work with you on that
    issue. I think, clearly, it is going to require a vigorous and
    broad interagency approach to deal with this problem, because
    you outlined the challenges very succinctly with globalization,
    terrorism, the rapidity of change in production and so forth,
    and to deal with those kinds of challenges, I think clearly a
    broad approach is going to be necessary. One final question,
    what has been the budgetary impact of this particular
    investigation? And could both of you comment on ongoing
    budgetary needs as we look forward to dealing with these kinds
    of problems and particularly, with regard to enhancing your
    research capabilities?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, as I have said, there is a need to
    ensure the infrastructure is there. There needs to be a strong
    science base behind the decisions. We use science on a daily
    basis. The risk assessment is a classic example of that, which
    to get to your earlier question, involved multiple agencies. We
    brought all of those folk in there and in fact, every day we
    have a call at 9:30 that involves many of the players that you
    asked me about.
        In terms of resources, though, specifically, we have got to
    determine what we need to get that job done in terms of the
    infrastructure. It is not just research and science, it needs
    information technology infrastructure, as well. A lot of what
    we have got to do is data handling, data analysis, vast amounts
    of information. If we are going to make this work, we have got
    to use modern IT to drive it, as opposed to old-fashioned piles
    of paper and pencils.
        Mr. Boustany. And I trust you will come back to us with a
    more detailed assessment of what those needs will be as time
    goes forward. But what has been the budgetary impact to your
    respective agencies with regard to this particular
    investigation? Could you comment on that? Could either of you
    comment?
        Dr. Petersen. For FSIS, we are appropriated to do a certain
    number of investigations of some nature because we know various
    investigatory needs are going to come up during the year.
    Approximately to date, and we have been involved for the last
    several weeks now, about a thousand man hours have been
    employed with the associated travel costs, so that is well
    within our system and so at this point, we are able to deal
    with the situation.
        Mr. Boustany. Thank you. I see that my time is about up.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Iowa,
    Mr. Boswell.
        Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to kind
    of pick up on what Mr. Holden was talking about on the dairy
    situation, Dr. Acheson. I appreciate what you have said, so I
    will try not to repeat that, but do I understand that you are
    trying to accelerate the dairy products from several countries
    by giving testing and verification to third parties? Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Acheson. I am not intimately familiar with the current
    status of those interactions with regard to dairy products. I
    didn't come to this hearing prepared to address that in depth.
        Mr. Boswell. I understand, but it does kind of fit into
    what we are discussing here, so would you give us that
    information?
        Dr. Acheson. I would be happy to and I apologize that I
    don't have it today.
        Mr. Boswell. No, that is okay. We would like to know. And I
    am not sure, if I could, how do you plan to ensure a third
    party in a country with corruption problems can meet all the
    guidelines? And I say that because, to use the example that Mr.
    Holden did, the Indian standards for levels of pesticide are
    higher than the U.S. and I would like, as you report back to
    us, if you would, that you give us an indication of what kind
    of a sampling you have done over the last six months, to give
    us a feel for just what is actually going on there,
    understanding that you didn't come prepared for that today, but
    would you give that information to us?
        Dr. Acheson. I would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Boswell. Okay. Well, I think that would add on to what
    Mr. Holden has already requested, say I appreciate it, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Let us see here. The
    gentlelady from Colorado.
        Ms. Musgrave. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here
    earlier and I will pass on the questions. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Okay. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman
    from Georgia, Mr. Scott. You are on the list.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what this
    hearing points out, and this issue with China points out, is
    that our food safety protection operation is dangerously
    inadequate. I think there should be a greater sense of urgency
    than what I am hearing from you gentlemen today. There was a
    motion picture that came out a while back and it was called,
    Outbreak. I think that was the name of it. Dustin Hoffman was
    in this movie. And it had to do with this monkey who came into
    this country and caused an outbreak.
        My concern is two-fold. Here we have got China, that you
    seem to think has it under control now. But this isn't the
    first time. China is notorious for contaminated food products.
    We have had all kinds of history, news reports, on its honey,
    for example; on its catfish, for example. So it is repeat after
    repeat. My fundamental question to you, first of all, is can
    China be trusted to deal with this problem or in fact, do you
    and FDA need new authority to deal with it?
        Dr. Acheson. First of all, to answer your specific
    question, I think we have to approach this in the context of
    trust and verifying. We have got to set up systems where we
    have to push back on manufacturers, importers, wherever they
    be, to put sound, safe systems in place to ensure the safety,
    yet we have to verify and inspect to make sure that they meet
    that standard. With regard to your comment of urgency, I can
    assure you, there is a great deal of urgency about this. One of
    the reasons that my position was created, just a week ago, was
    a reflection in FDA of that urgency and the need to take a new,
    strategic approach to determine what needs to be done to
    further protect the American food supply.
        Mr. Scott. Here is what concerned me, and why I say I don't
    think you are urgent enough. In your reference to a question
    from one of my previous colleagues who asked you has this
    outbreak from the pet food gotten into our food supplies,
    threatening our food supply. You said no, when in fact,
    according to reports, the contaminant has made it into our
    human food supply when scraps from pet food production were fed
    to hogs and chickens in the United States. Now, Mr. Acheson,
    those hogs and chickens are going to make it onto somebody's
    table and whether or not we know exactly where those hogs are
    and which those hogs are.
        Dr. Acheson. Let me clarify that statement so that you
    understand where I was coming from with that. My answer to that
    statement and perhaps it was my misunderstanding of the
    question, was whether the wheat gluten and rice protein
    concentrate had been used directly as an ingredient in a human
    food and to date, we have found no hard evidence to support
    that. You are absolutely correct, and we have said in many
    press releases, that it has gone, via the pet food, into the
    animal feed, there is no question about that.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Do you feel our food supply is safe?
        Dr. Acheson. I feel that our food supply is one of the
    safest in the world. My mission is to make it safer and more
    secure.
        Mr. Scott. Right now we are getting about 14 percent of our
    food that we consume in this country from other countries and I
    think you alluded to the fact that percentage is going to
    increase in the future. Do you see a threat there? Do you see a
    need for us to do one of two things, either begin to put up
    other safety and soundness measures to protect us or do you see
    a greater need for us to become more independent and less
    dependent on foreign sources for our food and begin to put more
    things in place to produce more of our own foodstuff in this
    country? For example, what I am saying, about 90 percent of the
    tomatoes, for example, are brought in to this country. That is
    a huge percentage.
        Dr. Acheson. Part of the complexities of this is the
    consumer demand for all kinds of food 24/7, 365 days a year,
    which puts a lot of pressure on American agriculture to provide
    that and that is a big part of what is driving the importation
    of food. It is consumer demand for readily available, lots of
    types, inexpensive, year round. That is a fact and short of
    changing consumer behavior, that isn't going to change. So we
    have got to accept that as the fact. Now, clearly your point as
    to whether we could grow more domestically, that is a separate
    issue and I am certainly not opposed to that in any way, shape
    or form. We have to accept the fact that we have got this
    global food supply and what are we going to do to protect the
    American consumer from not just imported foods, but clearly,
    within the last few months, we have had concerns with
    domestically grown fresh produce, as well as peanut butter,
    amongst other things. So this approach shouldn't just focus on
    imports, it needs to encompass both.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much for your answers. I
    appreciate it very much. I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from North
    Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it,
    then, when the pets started dying, the investigation was
    triggered and the two agencies working together and as you
    indicated in your testimony, did some very good work to retrace
    back the problems causing the illnesses in the pets consuming
    this tainted pet food. But it was the illnesses and the deaths
    of these animals that caused the investigation to begin, is
    that correct?
        Dr. Acheson. That is correct.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Now, obviously we are talking about matters
    related to the Nation's food supply; that is a little late. We
    want something a little more proactive than when the pets start
    dying. So let us talk about that one. I saw some film footage
    on television, it was a big old factory where they were putting
    melamine in as a substitute for wheat gluten because it was
    cheaper, has no nutritional value and indeed, has very adverse
    health consequences to these animals. Were you surprised at the
    commercial scale by which this product was being put into this
    commercial pet food as basically a cost savings technique, yet
    resulting in tainted food?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, clearly FDA was not aware that this was
    going on, otherwise we would have been more preventive and
    proactive.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Do you have a capacity, people on the ground
    over there running around looking at these places where the
    food is manufactured?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, as I said, we currently do not have the
    resources and the manpower to get an FDA inspector----
        Mr. Pomeroy. How about the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
        Dr. Petersen. The pet food issue is not directly under our
    jurisdiction, so it is when those animals come to slaughter
    that FSIS becomes directly involved.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Now, that is a good point because probably
    this technique of adulterating food supply fed to animals, also
    available to domestic livestock and such in China. Do we have
    food imported from China?
        Dr. Petersen. We have food imported, but at this point,
    there is no meat or poultry that is imported, although China is
    eligible to export cooked poultry, provided the poultry comes
    from a country eligible to export raw poultry to the U.S.
        Mr. Pomeroy. How about fish?
        Dr. Acheson. FDA regulates fish and the answer is yes.
        Mr. Pomeroy. I understand, a couple of States, Alabama and
    Mississippi, have actually taken steps to stop the import of
    Chinese catfish in light of concerns that these fish may have
    been fed tainted food supply over in China.
        Dr. Acheson. That is correct. We have had concerns about
    catfish particularly being contaminated with antibiotics and
    other fish products contaminated with a fungicide, malachite
    green. We at FDA have been working with those states to
    implement a testing program.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Are there Chinese catfish coming into other
    states?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes, I am sure there are.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Well, who is right in that one? Are Alabama
    and Mississippi right or are the other states lax? Should there
    be a national response?
        Dr. Acheson. What we have done is put an import alert out
    for eel in relation to malachite green.
        Mr. Pomeroy. If there is an evolving state of play relative
    to regulations and some states have one thing, some states have
    done nothing; FDA is looking at it, thinking about it. Do you
    think it would be helpful to have a label so at least consumers
    would know what is U.S. catfish, what is China catfish?
        Dr. Acheson. I would ask my colleague, Steve Solomon, to
    answer your question.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Why can't you answer it?
        Dr. Acheson. That is why I brought some other experts from
    our Office of Regulatory Affairs along, because I think your
    question is what is the current regulation.
        Mr. Pomeroy. My question is what do you think about
    consumers having notice of where their food comes from? What do
    you think about that?
        Dr. Acheson. Personally, I think the more information the
    consumer has to make informed choices, the better.
        Mr. Pomeroy. I think so, too. What does U.S. Department of
    Agriculture think about that?
        Dr. Petersen. Well, of course, we regulate the labeling of
    meat and poultry and eggs products and our view is that the
    current labeling system is sufficient to inform the consumer.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Now, does the current labeling system, sir,
    allow a person to find out what country their food comes from,
    where the steak comes from?
        Dr. Petersen. Well, what it does have----
        Mr. Pomeroy. No, wait a minute. I have got about 30 seconds
    left. I would like you to answer my question. Does the current
    system you think so highly of, allow a consumer looking at a
    grocery store shelf, to find out where their food comes from?
        Dr. Petersen. Well, for meat and poultry products, what it
    will show is for domestically slaughtered animals it will have
    the USDA mark of inspection on it, which means that we
    inspected it before it went into commerce and we think that is
    sufficient for those products.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Is this a little code? Is this a little code
    that consumers got to know? There is a little label that says
    USDA Inspected and that means ah, that was an Iowa steak, not a
    Chinese steak, or they don't come in from China so it's not a
    Canadian steak. Is that it?
        Dr. Petersen. It means that their Federal tax dollars
    inspected that product and found it to be safe and wholesome.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Where does it say, sir, this is a U.S.
    product, not a foreign product? Where does it say that?
        Dr. Petersen. It would say, on a little inspection label,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected and passed for meat
    and poultry products.
        Mr. Pomeroy. And so you have got to look for that U.S.
    inspected sticker and then understand, as a consumer, that
    Canadian steaks don't have that sticker on there, is that
    right?
        Dr. Petersen. Yes, and it is required----
        Mr. Pomeroy. Wouldn't it just be a whole lot clearer to say
    Canadian steak, U.S. steak, wherever steak? What is the matter
    with that?
        Dr. Petersen. That is the system we have. We think it
    informs the public. It has been out there for a hundred years
    and it is available for them to view.
        Mr. Pomeroy. Well, I buy steaks. I don't even know what
    sticker you are talking about. I can't tell if they are U.S., I
    can't tell if they are Canadian, I can't tell where they are
    from. I think we can do a heck of a lot better than what we
    have got now. In fact, I believe Congress has passed a
    directive in the last Farm Bill saying we would label where the
    meat comes from and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has done
    its very best to delay implementing this country of origin
    specificity. It continues to be, even in light of this
    incident, showing clearly that we don't have a handle on the
    quality of food coming into this country from other places.
    Even now you take the position of U.S. Department of
    Agriculture that consumers should not have clear labeling so
    they know where their food comes from?
        Dr. Petersen. The status of where we are vis-a-vis the farm
    bill and the country of origin labeling, I will simply have to
    get back to you with the response from the department.
        Mr. Pomeroy. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and I just would note,
    as far as I understand, there is boxed beef from Canada that is
    slaughtered in Canada that gets the USDA stamp. So there are
    situations where you have got product that is from another
    country, slaughtered in another country that has the USDA
    stamp.
        Dr. Petersen. Yes, when they are fabricated in a federal
    establishment.
        The Chairman. Yes. I just put that out there. Gentleman
    from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen.
        Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
    hearing. I really appreciate it. I have learned a great deal.
    But it wasn't clear, Dr. Acheson, have you practiced medicine,
    as well?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes, I have.
        Mr. Kagen. So you understand what it is like to write a
    prescription and have a patient fill it, and on the label of
    that prescription it says the name of the medication and its
    expiration date and the manufacturer?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes, indeed.
        Mr. Kagen. Wouldn't you like to see the same thing with the
    food that you buy and your family purchases and people across
    America?
        Dr. Acheson. I think that is a complex answer. We know,
    from consumer surveys, that most American consumers do not read
    labels.
        Mr. Kagen. That may be true, but what people really want,
    not just in this room, but across the country, people want
    reassurance that the food they are eating is safe and it won't
    harm them. The USDA has some interesting statistics that in the
    year 2000, over 1200 people died from food borne illnesses: 499
    died from listeria; 553 from salmonella; 99 from campylobacter.
    You are aware of these numbers?
        Dr. Acheson. Yes.
        Mr. Kagen. So food is good for you. But it is healthy food
    that keeps people healthy, so along those lines, what have you
    got in place now to survey the many foods that we have coming
    into the country for the safety of these foods for human
    consumption, because as I understand it, only about 0.7 percent
    of the imported food is now being inspected. Bearing in mind
    that it was February of 2006 when we became a net importer of
    food, what systems do you have in place now to reassure the
    American public that the food that they are eating is safe?
        Dr. Acheson. Well, as I said earlier, the current systems
    are based on where we see the risk, both in terms of the
    products that are of greater concern and the agents, the
    pathogens or the chemicals or the pesticides that are of
    greater concern. That is what the focus is at the border, in
    terms of what you put the energies into. If we see a problem
    with a particular food, we will concentrate on it. An example
    recently was cantaloupes from Mexico. We had some problems
    before with salmonella. We continued to test them, they were
    fine for several years. Then, just recently, several months
    ago, there was a problem again. We picked it up. So that is
    what I mean by it is a risk-based strategy.
        Mr. Kagen. Well, I would like to know that the medicines my
    patients put in their mouths are safe. I would like to know
    that the food that mothers put into their children's mouths is
    safe, as well, and along those lines, I have been very
    outspoken in being an advocate for country of origin labeling
    and maybe we can get to that at another time. Would you agree
    that it might be time for people in this country to begin to
    think about the idea of eating locally grown foods? Would you
    agree with that concept?
        Dr. Acheson. I am all about people eating safe and secure
    food, whether it is grown locally or 5,000 miles away is moot
    so long as we can ensure the safety of it.
        Mr. Kagen. Well, can you reassure me that any milk products
    or milk protein concentrates coming from India or elsewhere are
    free of any pesticides? Have you done any tests? Has anyone
    surveyed it?
        Dr. Acheson. As I said, there are assignments that are
    underway, looking for pesticide residues from various places,
    but I don't have the specific numbers in terms of how much we
    are doing. But in that context, I would point out that you can
    get illness from local problems just as you can from global, so
    whatever strategies you put in place, it needs to apply to the
    farm down to the street as well as the farm in another country.
        Mr. Kagen. Well, along those lines, perhaps instead of
    repeating a phrase from a former Republican president about
    trust but verify, perhaps a better phrase is a more ancient one
    and that is caveat emptor and buyer beware. So you are working
    closely with the FSIS, is that correct?
        Dr. Acheson. Absolutely, yes.
        Mr. Kagen. And what further plans have you got to wrap up
    the melamine investigation?
        Dr. Acheson. We are working very closely with the hog and
    poultry issue, primarily, with FSIS. Multiple calls every day,
    right through the weekend, as this moves forward and that is
    continuing and it will continue until that part of the melamine
    investigation is completed.
        Mr. Kagen. Have you looked system-wide at the FSIS, USDA
    and FDA to determine if your budgets are adequate to meet these
    needs?
        Dr. Acheson. I certainly have not looked at USDA's budget,
    but as I have said, part of the strategic approach that we need
    to undertake at FDA, for which I have been given leadership, is
    to ask that very question. Where are we strategically? Where do
    we want to go with prevention, intervention and response? What
    resources do we need to get there?
        Mr. Kagen. I look forward to working with you in the 110th
    Congress to reassure the public that the food they are eating
    is safe and especially, as I am going to be looking at the
    nutritional needs of children for lunch programs and breakfast
    programs on our subcommittees. Thank you for your testimony and
    I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
    Indiana, Mr. Donnelly.
        Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regards to food
    products coming in from China, such as fish products, what
    inspection has been done to determine what foods were used to
    feed those fish in China?
        Dr. Acheson. At this point, we don't have the resources to
    determine what those fish have been fed. When the melamine
    situation arose, we did not have an assay, a method to detect
    melamine in fish. In the last couple of weeks, our scientists
    have developed one, they validated it and it is now in place in
    our labs.
        As we were discussing earlier, we are already obtaining
    samples, looking for fluoroquinolones and other residues in
    fish and those same fish are now going to be tested for
    melamine and melamine related compounds when we have those
    assays. Right now it is just melamine, to get the beginnings of
    a surveillance assignment for fish. Now, once we have done
    that, that is going to give us an idea of what we are dealing
    with and we are going to have to then react appropriately to
    that. But we couldn't get the resources, the individuals into
    every fish farm in China.
        Mr. Donnelly. For fish products coming to this country now
    that are coming in, we don't know what they have been fed and
    they are still going into the supermarkets. Would that be a
    fair statement?
        Dr. Acheson. That is correct.
        Mr. Donnelly. So these fish products that are coming into
    our supermarkets now, there could well be melamine in those
    fish?
        Dr. Acheson. We cannot rule it out. That is part of what
    the assignment will tell us.
        Mr. Donnelly. Well, let me ask you this. In so many cases,
    other countries are so quick to ban our food products and shut
    the door on our food products. Why do we continue to let these
    products come into our country when this possibility exists?
        Dr. Acheson. Clearly, in order to, as I understand it with
    our current authorities, we have to demonstrate there is a
    problem. Your questioning has gone down the line of we believe
    or speculate there could be a problem with fish. We don't have
    any evidence of that at this point.
        Mr. Donnelly. Did you happen to see the article in the New
    York Times that discussed how animal feed producers have used
    this ingredient with fish farms time after time after time in
    China?
        Dr. Acheson. Understood. And clearly, if we reacted to
    everything that we read in the New York Times in terms of what
    we did, we would be in trouble.
        Mr. Donnelly. I am not using just the Times. I am using the
    fact that we found hogs and poultry in this country. I mean, at
    what time do we put the benefit of the doubt on behalf of the
    consumer where this product is coming in, instead of trying to
    cover these things over? When do we stand up for our consumers?
    As Mr. Etheridge was mentioning, his 27-pound grandchild might
    be eating this fish tonight. How do we let this continue?
        Dr. Acheson. Without some specific evidence that there is a
    problem with it, we don't have the authority to ban it based on
    the sorts of information that you are describing to me.
        Mr. Donnelly. Well, then that brings me to my next
    question, which is are we finding out who in China knew? How
    are we tracing back the steps? Have we found the different
    facilities? Obviously, we have located some of them, but have
    we found if any government officials in China knew, and who
    have we talked to on the government level?
        Dr. Acheson. We are working very closely with the Chinese
    food safety authority, AQSIQ, on this whole issue around
    melamine. Clearly, they are aware of this problem. We have
    assisted them in setting up assays to measure melamine, which
    they didn't previously have. I think you are asking a very good
    question. At this stage of the investigation, we just simply
    don't have all the answers.
        Mr. Donnelly. So we don't have the answers, but the
    products keep coming in at this point.
        Dr. Acheson. They are coming in, they are being tested and
    if they test positive, clearly, we are not going to ignore that
    and we will take appropriate action, which could potentially,
    at the far end of the spectrum, be an import alert on fish.
        Mr. Donnelly. Okay.
        Dr. Acheson. But we are not there yet.
        Mr. Donnelly. But at this time, these products are still
    landing in Seattle or somewhere else and being distributed?
        Dr. Acheson. Correct. At this point, we do not have the
    authority to prevent that.
        Mr. Donnelly. Do you have a list of your most likely
    potential problems other than melamine? Do you have an active
    list of scenarios of what areas we are concerned about?
        Dr. Acheson. Absolutely. Both on a food safety front and a
    food defense front, we have created risk-based lists in terms
    of what pathogen or chemical or radiological agent might be
    intentionally or unintentionally put in a food product, what
    type of food might it go into, and this is particularly true of
    food defense, where we have applied this very assiduously.
        Mr. Donnelly. Was melamine on any of these lists?
        Dr. Acheson. It wasn't.
        Mr. Donnelly. Okay. Could you share those lists with the
    Chairman, who would then share them with us?
        Dr. Acheson. I would be happy to. Those lists are
    classified, so within those confines, sure.
        Mr. Donnelly. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I was wondering if
    there have been different discussions about how to deal with
    this and apparently, you have added an new position at FDA.
    What are your reactions to these folks that want to create a
    new food agency that is separate where that they set up some
    separate agency and I guess put all you guys in there or
    something. What is your reaction to that?
        Dr. Acheson. Are you asking me?
        The Chairman. Both of you.
        Dr. Acheson. Well, let me start. I think whenever one is
    looking to make change, you need to be very careful that in the
    process you don't actually make matters worse. Whether that is
    a big reorganization or a small one, and the one that you are
    alluding to would be big. Simply moving boxes around seldom
    solves a problem. However this is approached, it needs to be
    approached strategically; it needs to be approached with
    adequate resources and it needs to be done carefully.
    Ultimately, with your suggestion, could it work, potentially,
    at some point? Sure, perhaps. But it would need to be done in
    the way I have described. Right now, the system, with the
    communication that we have between the various agencies, is
    working remarkably well. We have constant interaction, constant
    communication. And I would worry that simply embarking on a
    strategy like that could, in fact, put us back and not bring us
    forward.
        The Chairman. Yes, that has been my concern too, given the
    experience we had with Homeland Security. Hopefully we learned
    our lesson, but we could actually put ourselves in a situation
    that seems like we are, in my opinion, not doing anywhere near
    what we should in terms of all this imported food coming in. If
    we try to do something like this, we would basically be out of
    commission for two years. It would probably make sense to just
    stop importing food while we are going through this, because we
    couldn't guarantee anything, during all the commotion that
    happens. So it seems you have some of the same concerns I do.
    Mr. Petersen?
        Dr. Petersen. I would agree. Certainly we need to have a
    notion of what the solution is going to do as far as addressing
    the problem you think you are trying to solve. I think the
    agencies, the FDA and USDA, in this situation, certainly have
    complementary authorities. I don't see a lot of duplicative
    authorities and so this current situation, I think is an
    example of how the agencies can leverage their individual
    resources and get their arms around a particular problem. Are
    there always better ways to do things? Certainly. And I think
    we will always try to find those better ways, but our work
    seems to be complementary with FDA at this point.
        The Chairman. We have a vote. But the other thing I am
    wondering about is that I am sure that whatever you guys come
    up with is going to take extra resources. When I look at the
    huge increase of volume and the fact that we haven't had any
    new resources, I think that is going to be pretty apparent. My
    concern is with rules now and us trying to finally get a handle
    on this budget deficit. How are we going to pay for this? I
    know the administration has proposed user fees, which has been
    dead on arrival in Congress. Has there been any thought or will
    there be any thought to how in the world we will finance this?
    One question I have is, under the trade agreements, could we
    put this cost on the countries where we are trying to get the
    food supply certified? Is it possible to actually add the cost
    on to what is being imported into the country to pay for this
    or is that in violation of the WTO agreements? Do you know?
        Dr. Acheson. I don't specifically know the answer to your
    question, but all of those different complexities would have to
    be examined and you are correct, finding a way to pay for this
    is a key question. But you can't do that until you figure out
    what it is that you want to do and we need to do it quickly.
        The Chairman. Anybody else? We got a couple of minutes. Ms.
    Musgrave or Mr. Boustany, anything else for the good of the
    order here?
        Ms. Musgrave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say,
    that as I talked to my constituents, their main concern is food
    that comes from other countries. Although you have pointed out
    very appropriately that we also have problems with food grown
    in the United States, people have talked to me especially about
    the vulnerability of young children and how they react to E.
    coli and Listeria and many of those things that are so very
    dangerous to small children.
        It is not only the food consumed in homes of course, it is
    in restaurants too. Sometimes it is the way the food is
    handled. But we do make the assumption in this country that our
    food is safe, for the most part. What a horrific job you have
    in front of you, but this issue with the pet food has certainly
    illustrated our vulnerability and when we do make those
    assumptions that this is safe and we are going to be able to
    feed it to our children, we may be very wrong.
        I also worry about the consequences of people that would do
    harm to citizens in our nation. Now that this has happened,
    they are now very aware of how vulnerable we are. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Boustany?
        Mr. Boustany. I would just say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing. Gentlemen, your testimony and your
    answers to the questions were very informative. I certainly
    appreciate it and we look forward to working with you as we go
    forward. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and we will look
    forward to the information that was requested by the committee
    members being forwarded to us. Again, thank you for being with
    us today and I am sure we will be discussing this more often as
    time goes along. Thank you very much. The Committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1165.045