[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WASTE AND DUPLICATION IN THE USDA CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 7, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-178
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-971 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi KATHY CASTOR, Florida
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETE OLSON, Texas PETER WELCH, Vermont
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PAUL TONKO, New York
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILLY LONG, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Massachusetts
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Health
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
Chairman
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
Hon. Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Mississippi, opening statement................................. 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 90
Witnesses
William Jones, Ph.D., Acting Deputy Director, Office of Food
Safety, Food and Drug Administration........................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Steve Morris, Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office............................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Kim Gorton, President and CEO, Slade Gorton & Co., Inc........... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Bart Farrell, Director of Food And Beverage, Clyde's Restaurant
Group.......................................................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Justin Conrad, CEO, Bay Hill Seafood, President, Libby Hill
Seafood........................................................ 72
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Steve Otwell, Seafood Safety and Technology Emeritus, UF Food
Science And Human Nutrition, Aquatic Food Products Lab,
University of Florida.......................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Submitted Material
Letter of June 22, 2016 from Committee Members to congressional
leaders........................................................ 91
Letter of September 9, 2014 from Committee Members to the Office
of Management and Budget....................................... 95
Letter of November 26, 2013 from Committee Members to the
Committee on Agriculture....................................... 97
WASTE AND DUPLICATION IN THE USDA CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Health,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Barton, Burgess,
Blackburn, Lance, Griffith, Bilirakis, Long, Bucshon, Brooks,
Collins, Green, Schrader, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also Present: Representative Harper.
Staff Present: Paul Eddatel, Chief Counsel, Health; Blair
Ellis, Digital Coordinator/Press Secretary; Jay Gulshen,
Legislative Clerk, Health; Carly McWilliams, Professional Staff
Member, Health; Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Jennifer
Sherman, Press Secretary; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy
Coordinator; John Stone, Counsel, Health; Josh Trent,
Professional Staff Member, Health; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and
Minority Chief Health Advisor; Samantha Satchell, Minority
Policy Analyst; and Megan Velez, Minority FDA Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. The time of 10 o'clock having arrived, I will
call this subcommittee meeting to order. This is the last
hearing of the session, so an interesting hearing. And we have
one of our colleagues on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Harper of
Mississippi, waived on to take part as well. But thank you all
for coming.
The chair will now recognize himself for an opening
statement.
Today's hearing will take a closer look at what some
consider an unnecessary and duplicative program at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the catfish inspection program.
Why is it considered unnecessary and duplicative? Because
we already have a Federal agency responsible for overseeing the
safety and inspection of other types of seafood: it is the FDA,
the Food and Drug Administration.
As members of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, with direct oversight of the FDA, it seems
illogical that the USDA would be given the exclusive authority
to oversee and regulate catfish only while the FDA regulates
all other seafood.
What is it about catfish? Well, catfish is an extremely
low-risk food product. Explicitly creating a program
exclusively for catfish seems to be unnecessary, and it directs
resources away from high-risk foods to focus on food that is
one of the safest.
Think for a moment what this means to American seafood
companies, who are put in the untenable position of complying
with two sets of Federal inspectors overseeing their
facilities--one set for catfish and one set for all other
seafood. Why would companies continue to purchase catfish given
this additional burden?
What makes this scenario even more troubling is the fact
that both the FDA and the General Accountability Office agree
that there is no food safety justification for this regulatory
divide.
I, along with some of my colleagues on the committee,
Chairman Upton and then-Ranking Member Waxman and current
Ranking Member Pallone, sent a letter in 2013 to our
Agriculture Committee colleagues expressing this very point. In
2014, we sent another letter to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget expressing our concerns about this
program. And in June of 2016, we sent yet another letter to
House leadership urging the House to consider S.J. Res. 28,
which would repeal the program. And the Senate had already
passed Senate Resolution 28 by a vote of 55 to 43.
Since the very beginning of this transfer of regulation
from FDA to USDA, the justification was to ensure food safety.
But USDA's expertise is meat and poultry, not fish. The real
move seems to be to hinder foreign firms from importing catfish
so that they will be unable to compete with domestic catfish
farmers. Such actions could trigger a WTO lawsuit.
Another concerning aspect is that this USDA program has
cost the American taxpayers a lot of money without much to show
for it. GAO has issued no less than nine reports indicating
that the responsibility of inspecting catfish should not be
assigned to the USDA. Charged with overseeing over 80 percent
of the food Americans eat, we have long entrusted FDA to be the
primary regulator of our food supply, and the FDA has the
scientific expertise and regulatory experience to oversee the
entirety of the seafood market.
Many of you know that I am also a critic of the sugar
program. It exists primarily, some would say solely, to create
barriers to competition, ensure the profits of a special
interest group. And so I view this duplicative catfish program
in the same light.
The jurisdictional grab serves only to shield catfish
farmers against competition at the expense of U.S. consumers.
So such duplicative programs can negatively impact the U.S.
economy at a time when we can ill afford that.
So this seems to smack of food politics, not public health.
And the consequences are more than just waste and duplication;
the program will increase costs for consumers and ultimately
hurt the catfish market.
But we are going to hear both sides on this issue today,
and I applaud all those who have come in--people,
organizations--to voice their concern, to weigh in and educate
our Members on both sides of the issue.
I welcome you to this hearing and now yield the rest of my
time to Vice Chairman Guthrie.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
Today's hearing will be taking a close look at what many
consider an unnecessary and duplicative program at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)--the catfish inspection
program.
Why is it considered unnecessary and duplicative? Because
we already have a federal agency responsible for overseeing the
safety and inspection of other types of seafood--it is the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
As Members of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and
Commerce Committee with direct oversight of the FDA, it is
illogical (and wasteful) that the USDA would be given the
exclusive authority to oversee and regulate catfish only, while
the FDA regulates all other seafood. What is it about catfish?
Interestingly enough--nothing! Catfish is an extremely low risk
food product. Explicitly creating a program exclusively for
catfish is unnecessary and directs resources away from high
risk foods to focus on a food that is one of the safest.
Think for a moment what this means to American seafood
companies who are put in the untenable position of complying
with two sets of federal inspectors overseeing their
facilities: one set for catfish and one set for all other
seafood. Why would companies continue to purchase catfish given
this additional burden?
What makes this scenario even more troubling is the fact
that both the FDA and the General Accountability Office (GAO)
agree that there is no food safety justification for this
regulatory divide and I, along with my colleagues on this
committee--Chairman Upton, then-Ranking Member Waxman, and
current Ranking Member Pallone, sent a letter in 2013 to our
Agriculture Committee colleagues expressing this very point. In
2014, we sent another letter to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget expressing our concerns about this
program, and in June of 2016, we sent yet another letter to
House Leadership urging the House to consider S.J. Res. 28,
which would repeal the program.
The Senate has already passed S.J. Res. 28 by a vote of 55-
43, a significant vote indeed.
Since the very beginning of this transfer of regulation
(from FDA to USDA) the justification was to ensure food safety.
But USDA's expertise is meat and poultry, not fish. Frankly,
the real aim of this move was to hinder foreign firms importing
catfish so they would be unable to compete with domestic
catfish farmers. Such actions could trigger a World Trade
Organization (WTO) lawsuit.
Another concerning aspect is that this USDA program has
cost the American taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money
without much to show for it.
The GAO has issued no less than nine reports indicating
that the responsibility for inspecting catfish should not be
assigned to the USDA. Charged with overseeing over 80 percent
of the food Americans eat, we have long entrusted FDA to be the
primary regulator of our food supply. And, FDA has the
scientific expertise and regulatory experience to oversee the
entirety of the seafood market.
Many of you know I am also a fierce critic of the sugar
program. It exists primarily--and some would say solely--to
create barriers to competition and ensure the profits of a
special interest group. I view this wasteful catfish program in
the same light.
This jurisdictional grab, when weighed against its
duplicity, serves only to shield catfish farmers against
competition at the expense of U.S. consumers. Such wasteful and
duplicative programs can negatively impact the U.S. economy at
a time we can ill afford that. If you want an example of what's
wrong with Washington, the catfish program is a textbook
example.
Sadly, this smacks of food politics, not public health. And
the consequences are more than just waste and duplication. The
program will increase costs for consumers and ultimately hurt
the catfish market.
Experts in public health, public policy, economics, trade
and regulation have called for the repeal of the catfish
inspection program that does not improve food safety but does
cost American jobs and wastes American tax dollars. I applaud
the people and organizations that have voiced concerns about
the program and I am glad we are holding this hearing today to
ensure it is clear that this committee does not support this
program and we urge its repeal immediately.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say, when the full chairman came to me,
Chairman Upton, and said would you like to serve as vice
chairman, I was excited because I was going into a lot of good
policy. But what I didn't realize is how, serving with Chairman
Pitts, I was going to make a dear friend.
And so this is his last hearing scheduled as chair, so I
just want to point out that Chairman Pitts is a wonderful
person, a great person to work with, done a great job running
this subcommittee ever since I have been on this subcommittee.
He is also from Asbury University, which is in my district. And
he will be having honors there, and I look forward to doing
that in the spring.
And the other thing that I have thoroughly enjoyed is
getting to sit by Heidi. Heidi runs a great meeting, and, as I
found out, she is also a NASCAR fan, which is fun.
And then the people behind us, the people that--Chairman
Pitts has run a great committee, but it is because of the staff
here.
And so I have had an honor of serving with you, Mr.
Chairman. I think you have done a great job. And
congratulations on your retirement.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. And I second the motion on Heidi----
[Applause.]
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. And I second your sentiments on the
staff. You are only as good as your staff. They are the best.
So, Heidi and all of you, Paul, thank you very much.
At this point, we recognize Mr. Green.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, let me follow that up. I want to thank you for
serving as chair of the committee. I know we have done some
really good things in these 2 years that I have been the
ranking member and you have been the chair. And obviously, we
will miss you, Joe, but keep in touch with us.
Again, your staff has been great to work with, and
particularly Heidi. Thank you. Because, like you said, we all
know that our staff is the one that makes us look good to make
sure we can say these points.
Well, let me go into my statement now.
In my part of the country, catfish is a staple, and that is
why it is so important in east Texas and all through the South.
And I think this resolution is a good resolution. I didn't
particularly like the way it was done in the ag bill, but--the
FDA actually regulates other food sources, including fish. But
I also know there are some issues with competition from
overseas, as the chairman said, and some of the places where
they raise catfish would not be allowed in our country. But I
think the FDA has that authority to be able do that, and we can
encourage them through our committee.
The Food and Drug Administration has for many years been
the first line of defense when it comes to food safety. Under
provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Public
Health Service Act, the FDA has historically been responsible
for regulation of seafood within the U.S., a job which it has
done admirably.
The 2008 farm bill conferees removed the FDA of its
jurisdiction over catfish and added language creating a new
program at the USDA. It is important to note that this language
has never appeared in either the House bill or the Senate farm
bill and was never publicly discussed at the hearing or markup
in committee. The establishment of a new program under the USDA
is a textbook example of a solution in search of a problem.
The USDA has the responsibility for ensuring much of the
Nation's food supply is safe and properly labeled but until the
creation of the separate catfish program never had jurisdiction
over seafood products. Unfortunately, we have heard from many
companies, including those represented here today, this has
established two varying sets of Federal standards, which has
created undue complexity and regulatory burdens for American
companies that does nothing to advance consumer wellbeing.
Both the USDA and the GAO have agreed that there are no
food safety concerns to justify this dual regulatory system.
The GAO has conducted multiple reports that identify the USDA
catfish program as duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
In May of this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan joint
resolution, SJR 28, to end the USDA catfish inspection program.
In September, Representatives Roybal-Allard and Hartzler sent a
bipartisan letter with more than 206 signatures to the House
leadership requesting we as a body pick up the SJR 28.
Bipartisan members of the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote
leadership, as well, asking the chamber to take up the
resolution and restore the FDA's authority and ensure the
review of seafood is comprehensive and not arbitrarily split
among agencies.
There are more than 220 Members on record as supporting the
return of the program to USDA oversight, more than enough to
show that leadership should bring up this for a vote before the
end of the 114th Congress.
It is my hope that in today's hearing we can hear from
expert witnesses at the FDA and within the industry to ensure
that we are not only using the best regulatory system to
protect consumers but also being fiscally prudent.
I would like to thank the chair for this important meeting
and thank our witnesses for taking time to be here.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield a minute to
anyone who wants it.
Hearing no takers, I will yield it back.
Mr. Pitts. The gentleman yields back.
Is there anyone on our side of the podium seeking
attention?
If not, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Harper, 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG HARPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. And thank you for
your great leadership and service here in Congress. You will be
missed.
And thank you, Ranking Member Green and members of the
subcommittee, for providing me the opportunity to participate
in today's hearing.
Reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of executive
activities is necessary to ensure the proper and responsible
use of tax dollars, and I take our congressional oversight
responsibilities very, very seriously.
Despite being a strong supporter of the catfish inspection
program currently being administered by the USDA Food Safety
and Inspection Service, I didn't request to attend this hearing
to debate about whether or not catfish jurisdiction should be
under USDA or FDA. That has been decided by Congress, not once
but twice. The merits of the catfish inspection program have
been debated at length in Congress during the deliberations of
the last two farm bills.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that imported catfish and
catfish-like products represent a significant food safety
threat to the American public. And, accordingly, Congress
transferred inspection authority from FDA to USDA's Food Safety
Inspection Service, FSIS.
Unfortunately, the FDA inspection system was inadequate,
and it conducted inspections on a mere 0.2 percent of imported
catfish species. Since USDA already inspects farm-raised meats,
including foreign beef, pork, and poultry, Congress decided
that the same standards should apply to farm-raised catfish so
that these products receive comprehensive inspection.
Arguments made by opponents certainly are understood. But
first, USDA projects the program would cost much less than what
has been stated. And remember, too, that there is no
duplication, as FDA no longer inspects catfish, and all
inspection activities have been transferred, pursuant to the
provisions of the 2008 and 2014 farm bills.
Finally, the rule simply requires foreign suppliers to meet
an equivalent safety standard as our domestic producers, a
policy that allows all market participants to compete on a
level playing field.
The catfish inspection program is critical to public
health. In 2007, Congress acknowledged an alarming amount of
farm-raised seafood was entering the country containing banned
substances and dangerous chemicals, but FDA was not
appropriately inspecting to assure the safety of U.S.
consumers. This is a reason this happened. There is much
support for what we are doing now with it remaining with the
USDA since it is already there.
You have many States, including Louisiana, Mississippi,
Arkansas, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, to name a
few, that are supportive of what we are doing. I think it is
fine to have this hearing, but I do believe that the program is
working, it is cost-effective, and it is a good use of taxpayer
dollars.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to say some nice things about you. I know
that you are leaving. Because there was never an occasion,
really, in the time that you were the chairman of the
subcommittee, including when I was the chairman--and I think
you were the ranking member then, I don't exactly remember--
when you were not cooperating and trying to do everything on a
bipartisan basis. And many times when I would ask you to do
something that maybe you didn't even want to do, you still paid
attention and tried to accommodate.
So I just want to say that, really, your friendship and
your willingness to work with Democrats is unparalleled, and I
thank you for that. And I see that the people that leave this
place always seem to be much happier. I am sure that will be
true for you, as well.
Mr. Green. He won't have to beg for money.
Mr. Pallone. Right.
I also wanted to say how important this hearing is, because
ensuring that our Nation's seafood supply is safe, sanitary,
and wholesome is really essential. And seafood, including
catfish, is a healthy source of protein, and it is critical
that we do our part to ensure this commodity is readily and
easily available to American consumers.
I don't know, maybe, actually, Gene, maybe catfish is not
considered seafood. I keep thinking about seafood because I am
along the coast, but maybe--it is really freshwater, right? It
is not saltwater.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. So the FDA is the primary watchdog of our food
supply, and it oversees approximately 80 percent of the food
Americans eat. Unfortunately, FDA was stripped of its oversight
of catfish when, in 2008, conferees secretly inserted language
into the farm bill creating a new catfish program at USDA. And
this was done without any formal support of the House and
without any evidence that there was an existing food safety
problem associated with catfish that warranted a new program.
And the fact is the new program was and is not needed. The
GAO has cited the USDA's catfish program as an example of a
duplicative government program in 10 different reports. As
recently as April, GAO concluded that repealing the USDA
catfish program would eliminate a duplicate Federal program and
save the American taxpayers millions of dollars each year
without affecting the safety of catfish.
And earlier this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan
Congressional Review Act joint resolution to end the
duplicative and wasteful USDA catfish inspection program. If
this resolution were enacted, it would return catfish oversight
back to FDA, where it belongs.
That is why Chairman Upton and I sent a bipartisan letter
signed by 34 members of this committee to the House leadership
urging that the Senate joint resolution be brought up for
consideration before the House. And a subsequent bipartisan
letter to leadership was sent by Representatives Lucille
Roybal-Allard and Vicky Hartzler, this one signed by 206
Members, also urging the House to consider the Senate joint
resolution.
Between these two letters, there are 220 Members on record
in support of bringing the resolution to the floor and
eliminating the USDA's catfish inspection program. That is a
clear majority of the House.
So I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today
about how FDA's existing seafood inspection program is
sufficient to ensure the safety of catfish for American
consumers and why USDA's program is not necessary to protect
public health. And I am also interested in learning more about
the cost of this program to taxpayers and the impact USDA's
duplicative seafood inspection program has on the seafood
industry and American consumers.
And I just hope, Mr. Chairman, this hearing helps highlight
why the House must take action on the Senate joint resolution
quickly and move to nullify USDA's inspection program. And I am
just glad our committee continues its track record of working
together to ensure that food safety is fiscally sound.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
I have a UC request. I ask unanimous consent to submit the
following: 10 reports from GAO on this topic \1\ and 3
bipartisan letters the committee has sent out over the past 3
years. One from June 2016 to House leadership, one from
September 2014 to OMB, and one from November 2013 to the House
Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The reports were unavailable at the time of printing,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pitts. That concludes the opening statements of members
present. As usual, all written opening statements of members
will be made a part of the record.
We have two panels of witnesses today. Our first panel is
comprised of William Jones, Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Food Safety, Food and Drug Administration; and Steve Morris,
Acting Director of the Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office.
Thank you for coming today. Your written testimony will be
made part of the record. You will each be recognized for 5
minutes to summarize your testimony.
And so, at this point, Dr. Jones, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM JONES, PH.D., ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF FOOD SAFETY, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; AND STEVE
MORRIS, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JONES, PH.D.
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member
Green, and members of the committee. I am Bill Jones, Deputy
Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's
Office of Food Safety at the Food and Drug Administration.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the agency's ongoing efforts to oversee the safety of
the U.S. seafood supply.
FDA has had a strong regulatory program in place since the
mid-1990s to ensure the safety of domestic and imported
seafood. In fact, the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive
controls framework of FDA's seafood safety program is a basis
for the preventive controls requirements for other FDA-
regulated foods, as called for in the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act.
The agency has a variety of tools to ensure compliance with
seafood safety requirements, including inspections of domestic
and foreign processing facilities, 100 percent electronic
screening of all import products, examination and sampling of
domestic seafood and seafood offered for import into the United
States, inspections of seafood importers, and foreign country
program assessments.
As required by Congress in May 2014, FDA and USDA's Food
Safety Inspection Service established a memorandum of
understanding intended to move primary regulatory oversight of
Siluriformes and Siluriformes products from FDA to FSIS. Since
that time, FDA has worked closely with FSIS to provide training
and technical expertise. For example, during the transition,
FDA provided assistance regarding FDA historical inspection and
enforcement activities concerning Siluriformes and Siluriformes
products, guidance and interpretation on FDA's previously
issued import alerts related to Siluriformes, and lab sampling
and species identification techniques.
While FSIS currently has primary regulatory oversight over
catfish, in my testimony today I will discuss FDA's regulatory
framework for overseeing the safety of all other fish and
fishery products, both imported and domestic, emphasizing the
agency's risk-based efforts.
Because fish are cold-blooded and live in an aquatic
environment, fish and fishery products pose food safety
challenges different from those posed by land animals. FDA has
developed extensive expertise in these areas over decades of
regulating seafood.
Processors of fish and fishery products are subject to
FDA's Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, or HACCP,
regulation. In short, this regulation requires both domestic
and foreign processors of fish and fishery products to
understand the food safety hazards associated with their
process and product and requires a preventive system to control
for those hazards. Every processor is required to have and
implement a written HACCP plan whenever a hazard analysis
reveals one or more food safety hazards reasonably likely to
occur.
Foreign processors who export seafood products to the
United States must operate in conformance with seafood HACCP
regulation. In addition, the HACCP regulation requires the
importers to understand the hazards associated with the
products they are importing and to take positive steps to
verify that they obtain shipments from foreign processors who
comply with the regulations requirements.
FDA has numerous tools and authorities that enable the
agency to take appropriate action regarding imported products.
The agency conducts inspections of foreign food manufacturers,
and if FDA requests to inspect a foreign facility but is
refused, FSMA gave the agency the authority to refuse the
facility's food admission into the United States.
Besides HACCP inspections of foreign facilities, the agency
also conducts surveillance of food offered for import at the
border to check for compliance with U.S. requirements. FDA
reviews all import entries electronically prior to the products
being allowed into the country. The agency has implemented an
automated screening tool, referred to as the PREDICT system,
which takes into account a variety of risk factors. Based on
this electronic screening, the agency focuses its inspection
and sampling resources on those entries with the potential for
the greatest impact on public health.
Another key regulatory tool for controlling imported goods
is the import alert. Import alerts inform FDA field personnel
that the agency has sufficient evidence or other information
about a particular product or producer or shipper or importer,
geographic region, or even entire country to believe that
future shipments of an imported product may be violative. On
that basis, FDA field personnel may detain future shipments of
the article that is being offered for import into the United
States without physically examining or even testing the
product.
The agency has approximately 50 active import alerts that
identify a seafood product from a firm and/or country based
upon past violations. In March 2016, FDA provided FSIS a
complete list of firms that process catfish and are subject to
detention without physical examination, including under import
alerts for the presence of unapproved drugs in aquaculture, for
seafood products contaminated with salmonella, and for
misbranded seafood.
In closing, food safety continues to be a top priority for
FDA. The agency has a strong regulatory program in place for
seafood products, and FDA will continue to work with our
domestic and international partners to ensure the safety of
both domestic and imported seafood.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Mr. Morris, 5 minutes for your summary.
STATEMENT OF STEVE MORRIS
Mr. Morris. Thank you, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member
Green, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today.
Today, I would like to discuss the government's efforts to
inspect catfish.
In 2015, catfish accounted for about 4 percent of seafood
imports to the United States, almost all of it coming from fish
farms in Vietnam. Domestically, catfish production is
concentrated in Mississippi and Alabama.
Catfish, like other food products, can present food safety
risk from the presence of pathogens or contamination from
chemicals and drugs. Effective oversight is critically
important to help ensure that all food, including catfish, is
safe.
Since 2007, Federal oversight of food safety has been on
GAO's list of high-risk areas, largely because of fragmentation
that has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective
coordination, and inefficient use of resources.
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the FDA are
the Nation's two primary food safety agencies. In the 2008 farm
bill, Congress transferred the responsibility for the
inspection of catfish from FDA to USDA. FDA would be
responsible for inspecting all other types of seafood. In
addition, the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service would provide fee-for-service inspections of
seafood processing facilities at their request.
In May 2012, we reported that USDA's proposed catfish
inspection program would further fragment responsibility for
overseeing seafood safety, introduce overlap at additional cost
to taxpayers, and would likely not enhance the safety of
catfish.
Specifically, we identified four areas of concern.
First, catfish processors would be required to implement
plans to identify and address food safety hazards similar to
the ones already in use by FDA. As a result, paperwork
requirements for catfish processors could increase.
Second, overlapping inspections might occur. For example,
facilities that process only catfish could be inspected by two
agencies, and facilities that process both catfish and other
seafood could be inspected by three: USDA, FDA, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Third, inconsistent oversight of imported seafood could
result. For example, USDA would require foreign countries to
demonstrate equivalence to U.S. food safety standards for
catfish, and FDA would require processors to identify and
address food safety hazards for all other types of seafood.
Fourth, additional costs to the government could be
incurred. For instance, FDA estimated it spent less than
$700,000 annually to inspect catfish processing facilities,
while USDA estimated in 2011 that its program would cost $14
million annually.
Based on our findings, we suggested that Congress consider
repealing provisions of the 2008 farm bill assigning USDA
responsibility for inspecting catfish. Congress did not act on
our suggestion and in the 2014 farm bill reaffirmed its
commitment to the transfer.
USDA has moved forward to implement its catfish inspection
program and reduced its initial estimate of the program's
annual costs from $14 million to about $2.6 million. USDA
acknowledges that the program's actual cost is yet to be
determined.
In March 2016, USDA began conducting continuous inspections
at domestic catfish facilities and in April 2016 began
selective inspections and testing of catfish imports at U.S.
ports of entry. USDA reports it has rejected several shipments
of catfish for containing residues of unapproved drugs. USDA
plans to fully implement its catfish inspection program by
September 2017.
We have an ongoing review examining Federal efforts to
ensure the safety of imported seafood, including catfish. As
part of this review, we will review coordination between FDA
and USDA and how these agencies are leveraging resources to
conduct seafood oversight. We plan to issue this report in the
spring of 2017.
This completes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
And I will begin the questioning, recognize myself for 5
minutes for that purpose.
Dr. Jones, the GAO found that the memorandum of
understanding between FDA and USDA, ``does not address the
fundamental problem, which is that the USDA Food Safety and
Inspection Service catfish program, if implemented, would
result in duplication of activities and an inefficient use of
taxpayer funds.''
Do you agree that the memorandum of understanding does not
address duplication?
Mr. Jones. I believe that the memorandum of understanding
does address duplication, in that it imposes upon us the
obligation to remain in contact with each other to make sure
that we are able to identify firms that are under dual
jurisdiction so that we can avoid duplication of effort
wherever possible.
Mr. Pitts. In your testimony, you note the robust expertise
FDA has regulating food safety. And, prior to this program,
USDA did not have any experience regulating seafood, correct?
Mr. Jones. Correct.
Mr. Pitts. I assume that USDA has learned more since they
started the catfish inspection program, but USDA is still not
as well-versed as the FDA. Based on FDA's experience and
knowledge, is it more appropriate for catfish to be placed back
in your jurisdiction?
Mr. Jones. I wouldn't be in a position to say which would
be more appropriate. That decision remains up here. But we
would be able to accommodate that program, as we did in the
past, if called upon to do so.
Mr. Pitts. Now, the GAO report states that, ``FDA officials
told us Food Safety and Inspection Service's continuous
monitoring approach is counter to Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point, HACCP, -based requirements for seafood and not
based on risk.''
Would you explain how the USDA continuous monitoring
approach runs counter to the FDA program?
Mr. Jones. Well, the goal of our HACCP program is to be a
little bit more proactive and preventive in the way we regulate
seafood and make sure that it is safe.
The inception of that program back in 1997 was for the
purpose of being more efficient and effective and not relying
as heavily on inspection in order that we could have a
multipronged, risk-based approach to prioritizing our
activities, our sampling, our inspection, and our regulation of
seafood. And we do believe that that program has been
incredibly effective.
Mr. Pitts. How does FDA's risk-based approach determine the
frequency of FDA-regulated seafood activities?
Mr. Jones. Well, one example would be--it is often cited
that we do a minimal number of sampling, but that sampling that
we do is risk-based, for example. And there is a broad range of
rates at which that sampling occurs, and risk-based factors
figure into that.
So there is surveillance sampling, where, for example,
sampling of seafood from Canada would occur at a much lower
rate than the sampling of seafood from Vietnam. And, in fact,
if we find problems and implement an import alert, the burden
of that sampling shifts to the importer and rises to 100
percent for those problem products.
Mr. Pitts. Well, how does FDA's approach to inspecting
seafood through the seafood HACCP system ensure consumers have
safe products?
Mr. Jones. Well, because it is a risk-based approach and
because we have a long history of information awareness,
background on the firms, the processors, the history of
violative product, and are able to continuously prioritize our
efforts, we are able to focus on the areas where there are
problems and address those and put the most efficient use of
resources to the problem areas.
Mr. Pitts. So, if Congress were to repeal the USDA catfish
program, does FDA have the capability to inspect catfish in a
seamless manner that ensures food safety of catfish?
Mr. Jones. I am quite sure that, if called upon to do so,
we would be able to work very closely with our counterparts at
FSIS to effect a seamless transition and avoid any gaps and to
be able to reinsert that into our program.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Morris, I have just a half-minute left. In the ``2015
High-Risk Series: An Update,'' did GAO recommend that Congress
consider repealing these provisions of the 2008 farm bill?
Mr. Morris. Yes. That is still our position, yes.
Mr. Pitts. Yes.
Did you find that the memorandum of understanding between
FDA and USDA does not address the fundamental problem, which is
that the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service catfish program,
if implemented, would result in duplication of activities or an
inefficient use of taxpayer funds?
Mr. Morris. Well, we have an ongoing review looking at the
coordination between FDA and USDA.
In terms of the duplication of inspection, it is still the
case that a catfish processing facility could be inspected by
USDA but also be inspected by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, which would conduct inspections upon request on a
periodic basis.
Mr. Pitts. My time has expired. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Mr. Green, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank our witnesses for your testimony
today and have a number of questions for Mr. Jones about
catfish and the industry itself.
How many domestic seafood firms process both catfish and
other seafood and are therefore now subject to both FDA and
USDA oversight?
Mr. Jones. I know that there are quite a few, but I don't
have a number for you at this point.
Mr. Green. If you could just get some amount, because,
obviously, that would show the duplicate effort instead of
expanding it.
In the proposed rule USDA published to establish its
catfish program, the Food Safety and Inspection Division stated
that catfish is a low-risk food. Does FDA agree with this
assessment?
Mr. Jones. That would be our assessment as well. It is
never eaten raw, and it is not usually a ready-to-eat product,
and we rarely see illnesses that can be attributed to catfish.
Mr. Green. OK.
The FDA has a long history of ensuring the safety of all
seafood products. Mr. Jones, you testified that the FDA's
seafood risk program--and, in particular, I am interested in
learning about the FDA's risk-based approach, which identifies
and prevents hazards, better protects the American food supply.
Can you explain the benefits of the FDA HACCP program that
focuses on prevention as compared to the program that relies
solely on spot checks of finished seafood?
First, you do have inspectors on the docks, I know, at the
Port of Houston and also at our border with Mexico, because I
have met those. Sometimes they will come from Laredo to Houston
and go back. But how often do you do the spot checks?
Mr. Jones. The spot checks are conducted routinely. They
are exactly that, spot checks, so it is hard to put a number on
them. But they are conducted at all ports of entry, and it is
an ongoing thing.
Mr. Green. OK.
And the other part of it, you have your risk prevention as
a compared program. So you have spot checks along with the
analysis of the risk prevention, looking at where those
particular products are coming from.
Mr. Jones. That is right. In fact, the whole purpose of the
surveillance sampling is to try and identify areas where we
need to focus our efforts.
Mr. Green. OK.
Is that true for both domestic and foreign producers of
seafood? Are they subject to the same regulatory regimen?
Mr. Jones. Absolutely. The foreign firms are required to
meet all of our requirements, and their importers are required
to verify that they do.
Mr. Green. Given the FDA's long history of regulating
catfish and other food, do you anticipate the agency would be
able to handle the responsibility if the authority over catfish
were returned to the FDA?
Mr. Jones. Yes. I anticipate that would not be a problem
for us.
Mr. Green. Thank you. And it is reassuring to hear about
the FDA's program, which Congress used as a model when we
drafted the Food Safety Modernization Act that expanded that
risk requirement to all food under FDA's jurisdiction.
And I will yield back my time.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the chair emeritus of the full committee, Mr.
Barton, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I can tell you, we
are going to miss you next year. I would assume that this is
your last chairmanship hearing.
Mr. Pitts. This is the last.
Mr. Barton. It shows your dedication to duty that you are
holding a hearing on catfish, which in all probability are only
eaten in your district, certainly not grown. We appreciate your
service.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Gentlemen, I am not an expert on catfish. Mr.
Harper of Mississippi is probably our catfish expert, I would
assume. So my questions are going to be fairly basic.
How many States in the Union have catfish commercial
production? It is not a trick question.
Mr. Morris. There are four primary States: Mississippi,
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana.
Mr. Barton. OK.
Mr. Morris. Four key states.
Mr. Barton. And how many nations export catfish to the
United States?
Mr. Morris. Currently, there are 10 countries that have
provided documentation and comply with requirements to allow
exports into the U.S., Vietnam being the largest exporter.
Mr. Barton. Do you know what are the top two or three
besides----
Mr. Morris. Vietnam would cover about 90 percent of that;
China and Taiwan----
Mr. Barton. OK.
Mr. Morris [continuing]. Are the top three.
Mr. Barton. So Asian countries.
So we have 10 nations that export to the United States, and
we have four states that produce it. Is there any reason to
believe that those four states couldn't guarantee the safety of
the catfish eaten in their states? Why do we need a Federal
program?
Mr. Jones. Well, I would say that the main reason for that
is that a great deal of this product is in interstate commerce,
so there is an obligation for us to ensure the safety of that
product.
Mr. Barton. So you don't think the great State of
Mississippi or Alabama or Arkansas or Louisiana or Texas could
guarantee the other 46 states that the catfish that we grow is
safe to eat?
Mr. Jones. I wouldn't doubt their capabilities at all, but
it is a statutory requirement, and we do have the obligation to
oversee product that is in interstate commerce.
Mr. Barton. Well, I understand that, but we have a
President-elect who has decided that it is time to change the
status quo. And I believe I could trust Mr. Harper and the
State of Mississippi to guarantee the catfish I eat, if it is
not in Texas, if I don't catch it myself, is safe for me to
eat.
I do understand on the foreign side you have to have some
standard on imported product. But if it is Vietnam, Taiwan, and
China, I believe we could just say, if we ever catch you doing
something bad, we are going to close our market. I mean----
Mr. Jones. Well, my response to that would be that that is
effectively what we achieve through our import alert program.
When we identify a problem, those products are stopped and they
are checked 100 percent.
Mr. Barton. Which is the bigger problem, if there is a
significant problem? Is it imported catfish or domestic
catfish? I mean, how often do you really see somebody trying to
provide tainted catfish?
Mr. Jones. Well, we do----
Mr. Barton. I know it happened, because----
Mr. Jones. We do, in fact, occasionally find HACCP
violations at domestic firms and have issued warning letters at
domestic firms. What we have not found in domestic product is
residues of unapproved drugs. We do find those in some imported
products. And that is the reason for our----
Mr. Barton. So the primary problem is the imported catfish.
Would that be safe to say?
Mr. Jones. I am not sure if I would characterize it as a
problem. It is something that we are very vigilant about and
are on top of. And, as I mentioned earlier, we have rarely, if
ever, seen illnesses attributed to catfish, foreign or
domestic.
Mr. Barton. OK.
Well, I know our committee has a vested interest in your
agency because we have jurisdiction over the Food and Drug
Administration and we have limited jurisdiction over the United
States Department of Agriculture. So you have probably got more
allies in this room for FDA regulation than USDA regulation.
But if you look at it in the overall scope of what the
mission statement of the FDA is, I wouldn't think catfish
protection would be in the top 10. I believe new drug
development and all of the cures for cancer that Chairman Upton
and Chairman Pitts just worked so hard--and Mr. Pallone--to
pass the 21st Century Cures bill would probably be a little bit
higher priority.
So my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I am not real sure
where we are going with this. If I am still here, I will listen
to Mr. Harper, because I have a feeling he is the one who has
the real essence of the issue here. But I will certainly work
with the committee if this is something we need to take action
on.
And I appreciate you gentlemen's testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Jones a few questions.
We heard a lot about the benefits of FDA's HACCP program.
However, I am also interested in learning more about other
aspects of FDA's risk-based approach to seafood inspection.
First, how does FDA prioritize what seafood processors or
importers to inspect?
Mr. Jones. Well, we do have electronic review of all
entries, and we have factors included in that review that
include things such as firm and product history, inherent
product risk, processing risks, facility inspection history,
sample analysis results. And we also have a team of people that
reviews and prioritizes that information and makes selections
for those priorities based on current events.
Mr. Pallone. And can you describe how FDA's new authority
under the Food Safety Modernization Act strengthened the
agency's ability to protect the seafood that millions of
Americans eat each day?
Mr. Jones. Well, in fact, that new authority strengthens it
in several significant ways.
It gives us authority to issue mandatory recalls for foods
so that if a firm were to refuse to conduct a recall when we
thought it was necessary we could force them to do so.
We can order administrative detention of any article of
food if we feel that there is a reason to believe that it is
either adulterated or misbranded.
And we also have, through FSMA, the authority to suspend
the registration of a facility if the agency determines that
food that is manufactured or processed or held or packed there
has some reasonable probability of causing harm or even death.
And we also have authority now that if we request
inspection of a foreign facility but that inspection is
refused, we now have the authority to refuse admission of that
firm's product into the country.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Now, in May, we heard about how USDA's FSIS stopped
shipments of imported catfish because of illegal drug residues.
Did FDA take similar action when the agency regulated catfish?
Mr. Jones. We did, in fact. And I have spoken earlier about
the import alerts, which is a very effective tool for us. And I
also mentioned that we worked very closely with FSIS in
transferring the program to them. In the process of doing so,
we shared with them all of the information in the import
alerts, and some of that information covered those firms and
allowed them to focus their efforts there.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Well, thanks. In my opinion, it is clear from your
testimony that FDA has a robust food safety system in place
that is capable of ensuring the safety of all seafood products,
including catfish. Although I keep saying catfish is seafood,
which it really isn't, but same thing.
All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
It is interesting to have our final meeting on catfish. One
of my dad's first attempts at business was a catfish farm. And
we put a bunch of catfish about this big, about the size of a
minnow, in the pond. It rained really hard, the tank broke, and
they went downstream to the creek on our farm. So there was
record catfish farming downstream from us, so that was
interesting.
But it is serious. It is a great product. I feel like I am
an aficionado, if you can be, of catfish, so it is something
that I am interested in.
So, Dr. Jones, how is your program different than what
the--I know you have it in your testimony, but I am going to
let you expand on this. So how is your program different than
the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service? How are you
different from them?
Mr. Jones. Well, I think the main difference is that we are
not doing continuous inspection of all of these firms and we
are not requiring equivalence. We have taken a very different
approach with all of the other seafood that we regulate.
It is a multipronged approach, it is risk-based, and it is
data-driven. And it allows us to focus our efforts to work both
efficiently and effectively without having to burden firms and
our own agency with continuous inspection and equivalence
determinations.
Mr. Guthrie. So why do you have different approaches then?
Why do they do it differently, the other agency?
Mr. Jones. Well, the main thing that we do, through the
HACCP program, is prioritize our efforts, focus our efforts,
and take an approach that involves inspections at the docks,
surveillance sampling, and collection of any manner of data
having to do with firm history, product history, and relative
risk ranking of various products, various commodities, and the
hazards associated with them, so that our efforts are extremely
focused, and the majority of our resources can be put towards
the areas where there are known to be specific problems with
particularly high-risk products.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
And so is the FDA equipped to inspect and incorporate
catfish back into your program if the FSIS program is repealed?
Mr. Jones. If we were called upon to do so, we would put it
back where it was before.
Mr. Guthrie. Great. Thanks.
And, Mr. Morris, is it true that in the 2015 annual report
entitled ``Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits:
An Update'' that the GAO identified catfish inspection as a
duplicative program and noted that repealing provisions of the
2008 farm bill that assigned USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service responsibility for examining and inspecting catfish and
for creating a catfish inspection program would avoid
duplication of Federal programs and save taxpayers millions of
dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish
intended for human consumption?
Mr. Morris. Yes, that is still our position. I would also
say, though, that, you know, events have moved forward; USDA
has implemented their program. And we do have an ongoing review
looking at both the FDA and USDA's program to see how well they
are doing.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my questions. I yield
back my time.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Dr. Schrader, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Another
good, bipartisan hearing on a good subject. I want to thank you
for your leadership over the last few years. It has been a
pleasure to work on this committee and Energy and Commerce in
general.
I don't have a lot of questions, just a few statements for
the record to help inform the members. I served on the Ag
Committee prior to coming to Energy and Commerce. And I think
as has been indicated here, many of you know in the 2008 farm
bill, without any public testimony or any language from either
the Senate or the House, considerations of the farm bill, the
provision that stripped FDA authority for catfish was put in at
the last minute. A classic case of pork politics--well, catfish
politics, I guess, here in Washington, D.C.
And I would like to think we are past that stage. Since
that time, there have been Members of both sides of the aisle,
Blue Dog Democrats like myself, Freedom Caucus and other
Members on the other side, that are really concerned about
duplication and waste in government. This is probably one of
the most classic and best-case examples.
GAO--thank you--has done a very thorough study on this and
made it very clear. It has been stated again and again that
catfish is a low-threat food source for America. We don't
inspect--FDA and, I guess, at this point, USDA to some degree
inspect. The duplication is indeed there, because we have two
separate agencies doing fish inspection. We actually have FDA
wasting time training USDA folks, which is sad.
So I think this is pretty straightforward. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the issue, draw another light on this. I
can assure you that the Ag Committee still feels the same way.
In 2013, the House Ag Committee overwhelmingly passed an ag
bill that restored jurisdiction, if you will, and does not
favor this. We have the SJR 28 from the Senate, indicating
their disapproval of the separation of having these two
duplicative fish inspection programs.
So it would be nice to start a new Congress or finish this
Congress with a good, bipartisan hearing and, hopefully,
ultimately, a bill to restore FDA's authority over the catfish
program, reduce waste, and help the taxpayer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I don't know that I really have an interest in who inspects
the fish other than the economic one.
Now, Mr. Morris, you indicated that--and the question was
commercial operations. And you left Virginia out, and I assume
that you did that because we don't do catfish farming per se.
But because of bad decisions that our state made, we introduced
the blue catfish into the James River in the 1970s. And now the
best way to eliminate it is to eat it--or to at least control
the numbers. Apparently, this fish lives up to 20 years, can
grow to 100 pounds.
Mr. Morris. Wow.
Mr. Griffith. So, keeping in mind that we are not talking
about fish farming, you would include Virginia as an area where
there is a commercial operation, but it is catching it out of
the river as opposed to fish farming per se.
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Now, here is the dilemma that some of our
folks--and we are going to have a witness on the next panel who
will talk about this as well--that some of our folks are
having, and that is, if the inspection process has to be both--
and I will ask both of you to give your thoughts on this. If
the inspection process has to be two--and I can't say whether
it ought to be FDA or USDA, but nobody has proposed that USDA
take over all seafood inspection, so that is why I would have
to lean towards FDA.
But if these folks catching the blue catfish out of the
James River and the Chesapeake Bay--apparently, it is spreading
now into other parts of the bay--if they are having to be
inspected by two, both the written testimony of the witness on
the next panel and Todd Haymore, who wrote a letter on June 3
out of the Office of the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, indicated that there are going to be some businesses
that just decide they are not going to process or deal with the
blue catfish because they don't want to be inspected and
operate under the rules of both the USDA and the FDA and they
can deal with all the other fishes by just doing one.
So how do we solve this problem? Because, recognizing Mr.
Harper, who is sitting in front of me, I have to believe it was
shifted to the USDA because something wasn't going right at the
FDA. So how do we solve these problems that the catfish farms
in Mississippi, et cetera, are having with the problems that it
will create for Virginia and other states of the Chesapeake Bay
in trying to eliminate a predatory fish?
Help me out. How do we thread that needle? Any solutions?
Mr. Morris. Well, that is a good question. I don't know if
I have a specific answer to you. But you did mention resources,
how much the program would cost. I could comment on that.
In terms of the USDA program, originally they estimated it
would cost about $14 million a year. They reduced that estimate
to about $2.6 million. But they have spent $20 million to
develop the program since 2009, so that is already a sunk cost
into the program. So just to give you some perspective in terms
of what is being spent.
On the FDA side, the estimate would be more in the $700,000
range, just to give you some perspective.
Mr. Griffith. Dr. Jones, how do we solve Mr. Harper's
problem and the problem that apparently arose--or else Congress
wouldn't have passed something--with the FDA inspecting the
catfish and my state's problem, where if we have the dual
inspection we are probably going to greatly hamper commercial
fishing operations? Which will actually have the benefit of
cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay in part.
Mr. Jones. Well, I am not in a position to propose a
solution to that problem. But, if I could, I would like to
comment on something you mentioned earlier----
Mr. Pitts. Please.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. Which was your belief that this
transfer of primary authority may have occurred because there
was some sort of a problem with FDA's seafood inspection
program. And I just want to go on record as saying that I don't
believe that to be the case.
Mr. Griffith. All right. And I appreciate that. And I will
look into it further. And I suspect Mr. Harper may have some
comment about that later.
It is interesting, and it goes to prove we shouldn't be
just dropping species from one ecosystem into another one
without thinking it through very, very carefully.
But just so that you all will know, I represent the western
part of Virginia, so I don't have what typically people would
think of as a bay district. However, 3 of my 29 jurisdictions
are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and I have the headwaters
of the James in my district. So, while the blue catfish haven't
gotten there yet, when I look at data that indicates they are
75 percent of the biomass in the James River today because they
eat everything and squeeze out the others, I am concerned that
it will hurt some of our tourist industries which deals more
with the smaller fishes and trouts as you get further up the
stream at some point in the future. So I am concerned about
this issue.
And I appreciate it and yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, for the record, I just want to say that I went to the
dictionary a while ago and looked up ``gentleman'' and there
was your picture. So thank you for all that you have done for
all of us over all these years, and the best to you in your
retirement. I enjoyed working with you and hope to in the
future. I hope we run into you.
Mr. Morris, in the 2012 GAO report on seafood safety, it
stated that Federal oversight of food safety is a high-risk
area, largely because of fragmentation, and that directing the
food safety inspection program to issue catfish inspection
regulations further fragments that system.
Could you discuss what areas within the FSIS inspection
system would lead to further fragmentation?
Mr. Morris. Yes, absolutely. Well, in that report, we
identified basically four areas of concern.
So the first would be that the FSIS program would require
processes pretty much to implement requirements that were
already in place through FDA, so that would be one area of
inefficiency and duplication.
Another one would be in the area of overlapping
inspections. So, for example----
Mr. Long. That was going to be my next question. Yes.
Mr. Morris. OK. So, for example, in a facility that would
process catfish and other seafood, you may have USDA inspecting
the catfish, you might have FDA inspecting the other seafood,
and you may have the National Marine Fisheries Service there
inspecting both. So we noted that as an area of duplication as
well.
Also, in terms of the seafood imports, we noted that there
is inconsistent oversight in seafood. For example, as Bill
mentioned, FDA would be responsible for all other types of
seafood, and it would essentially depend on processors to
identify and address food safety hazards, whereas with the case
of USDA, they would have to determine foreign equivalence to
USDA standards.
So those are some examples of where the duplication would
occur, and inconsistencies.
Mr. Long. Well, what are some of the differences in the two
systems on the inconsistent oversight of imported seafood? What
are the----
Mr. Morris. So, for example, USDA would require foreign
governments to demonstrate equivalence to our standards, so it
would deal on the government level. FDA would deal with the
processors and oversee them to ensure that they are identifying
and addressing any hazards. So it is a different focus.
Also, in terms of the USDA program for imports, eventually,
USDA wants to reinspect all of the imports coming in, whereas
FDA, as Bill mentioned, uses more of a risk-based approach.
Mr. Long. So how does that affect the overall approach for
ensuring the safety within our system?
Mr. Morris. Well, it goes back to what is the identified
hazard. In the case of USDA, they identified salmonella as the
primary hazard to catfish, but we found that that hazard was
pretty much nonexistent.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And, Dr. Jones, FDA continues to exercise oversight of
dual-jurisdiction establishments that process both catfish and
other seafood products. Could you discuss the impact this dual
jurisdiction has on these facilities that process both catfish
and other seafood? Are you concerned that there would be
unnecessary overlap within these inspections?
Mr. Jones. Well, it is part of our arrangement with FSIS to
work closely on that, and I am not in a position to say
anything to disparage the work that they do in concert with us.
Mr. Long. OK.
The FDA has the authority to undertake systems recognition
assessments to determine whether a foreign food safety system
is compatible to the U.S. food safety system. Could you discuss
this process and how it affects the FDA's overall primary
oversight?
Mr. Jones. Absolutely. It is something that we have been
working on for several years now. In a sense, it offers an
alternative to equivalence.
Equivalence determinations are an extraordinarily
cumbersome prospect. Things are done in different ways, and so
you can't find things that are different to be equivalent very
easily. However, you can find them to deliver equivalent levels
of food safety, to provide same outcomes.
And so what our process for determining that comparability
of systems is is to look at the food safety programs that
others country have in place and evaluate them against ours to
see if the outcomes are the same.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And after my trip to the dictionary, it gives new meaning
to saying that I yield back to the ``gentleman'' from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
Dr. Bucshon, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Bucshon. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have too much to add, but I am just curious about
how the inspection process works in general. How do you
determine, when you are doing spot checks, what constitutes a
representative sample that gives you an idea of the overall
content of the product coming into the United States?
Mr. Jones. Well, it is an ongoing process, so it doesn't
occur in one set of sampling. So the sampling is taken as a
whole over a period of years, and we evaluate that sampling on
an ongoing basis, and we adjust it accordingly. So you don't
have a fixed set of a certain number of samples of a certain
kind of product from a certain place. It changes routinely, and
when we start to see a problem, we increase that sampling
dramatically to understand the scope of that problem.
And some potential outcomes of that goes back to something
I discussed earlier, import alerts. In some cases, we have
found that there are individual firms that have problems and
need to be on import alerts. And in other cases, we have found
that the problem is pervasive enough to encompass an entire
geographic region, and in yet other examples, it is an entire
country. And we use that sampling to target those resources and
identify the scope of the problem.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. So it is a directed sample. It is not like
for every 10,000 catfish that come in you sample a certain
percentage. Because there is a way to statistically analyze,
right----
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. What a representative sample
would be? But what you are saying is not only do you do that,
but you also look at other variables like where the origin of
the product comes from and if they have had previous problems.
Mr. James. That is exactly right. We do both.
An example of the kind of sampling you were originally
discussing would be when we are sampling for histamine in fish
that could be partially decomposed. That would be a
statistically significant sampling for a particular shipment.
Mr. Bucshon. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, 5
minutes for questions.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join others
in saying we are really going to miss you. I know you are
looking forward to some good time and some good travel out and
about and some teaching in the classroom, but we are going to
miss you here. So we do wish you and Ginny well.
I have to tell you, some of my college buddies were real
excited that we were doing that hearing, because I want to
Mississippi State University and they know a lot about catfish.
And I am one of those kiddos that grew up on a farm that
had a catfish pond. Now, Mr. Guthrie talked about how theirs
kind of broke apart and spilled out. Ours stayed in place, but
I can tell you those catfish were talented. They could hear my
dad walking down there to the pond to spread the catfish food,
and by the time he got there, they were jumping out of the
water and ready to be fed.
So this is a fun hearing for us to do.
Mr. Jones, I just want to ask you--we have talked about the
economics, we have talked about duplications. Is there a public
health need to have two separate inspection programs? Is there
a justification from a public health point of view?
Mr. Jones. Our assessment of that, in fact, aligned with
FSIS's assessment, that catfish is, in fact, a low-risk food
and certainly would not be in the higher list of priorities
within our program.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. So, in your opinion, there would be no
public health need for duplicative programs----
Mr. Jones. Well, I would say----
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. Or two programs or separated
duties.
Mr. Jones. I would say that it is low-risk with regard to
imminent health risk. I can't comment on the duplication of
authorities, but I can comment on the idea that it is essential
that catfish be sampled----
Mrs. Blackburn. Sure.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. And be monitored and be regulated,
especially----
Mrs. Blackburn. I think we all agree with that.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. With regard to unapproved drug----
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Morris, do you think the farm bill provision--should
that be revisited and repealed, do you think?
Mr. Morris. Yes. We have been on record to say that is the
case, and we are still on record to say that.
Mrs. Blackburn. To simplify it. Well, OK. I think that
sounds good.
We are all concerned about saving taxpayer dollars. We are
concerned about public safety. We know if you do it right the
first time, when it comes to food and food inspections, that
you don't have the expense of contaminated product in the
pipeline. Also, programs that run efficiently are going to do a
better job of monitoring the product that they are to be
monitoring.
And Mr. Morris, we see this repeatedly in reports that you
all give us. The streamlining of fish and sea sometimes brings
things more into focus. So that is a part of what we want to
do.
But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back and
thank you for the hearing.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Morris, you testified earlier almost like this was
a Mississippi and Alabama issue, and then you expanded it to a
few more states. But, according to USDA, there are at least
nine states who participated in a catfish farm survey. Those
States were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas.
So it is much more than just Mississippi and Alabama, you
would agree, in that situation?
Mr. Morris. Sure.
Mr. Harper. And when we look at this--and, Dr. Jones, there
is no duplicative activity. FDA doesn't inspect anymore,
correct?
Mr. Jones. Correct.
Mr. Harper. So we are only talking about one program. And
you would agree that if this was transferred back from USDA to
FDA there would be costs for FDA to do that inspection,
correct?
Mr. Jones. I couldn't necessarily identify what those costs
would be. It would be integrated into part of a much larger
program.
Mr. Harper. But there would have to be additional people,
and those folks who would be doing--what was the previous cost
when you were doing farm-raised catfish inspections?
Mr. Jones. We never looked to see what specifically farm-
raised catfish alone would have cost. I don't know if we could
get you those numbers.
Mr. Harper. Well, we have talked, and Mr. Morris has used
the figure of $14 million several times as an estimate. Why do
we keep using that figure when that was an estimate and is
actually not accurate and the cost now is about, what, $2.6
million, which is estimated to be about $1.4 million more than
maybe what FDA projected?
But I want to point out--this was earlier in the year, back
in probably July. This program, USDA's FSIS program, one
example, stopped more than 40,000 pounds of unsafe catfish
products that were coming in from Vietnam. The shipment tested
positive for malachite green, which is a drug that could have
possible carcinogenic effects. That was caught.
Now, if it is low-risk and not considered a priority in
FDA, if FDA had it, that is not something you would catch in
your 100 percent electronic testing, correct? Because you are
not sampling 100 percent. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Jones. Actually, it wouldn't have been caught through
surveillance sampling, necessarily, for that particular
shipment, but it would have been on an import alert and would
have been stopped, and it would not have been allowed entry
without having been tested.
Mr. Harper. All right. That is your belief, but you are not
capturing everything that comes in. Because you don't
personally inspect, even on the seafood that comes in now,
everything. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Jones. No, we do not inspect everything. That is the
purpose of HACCP, to avoid having to inspect everything and
eliminating good food from the food supply.
Mr. Harper. The main point being here that we only have one
program right now for farm-raised catfish inspection, and that
is through USDA.
And would it be fair to say, Mr. Morris, that until there
has been enough time--because this started in officially April
of this year--you can't do a GAO study right now. You would
delay a little bit to see the effectiveness of a program. Is
that a fair statement?
Mr. Morris. Well, we are taking a look at the ongoing
implementation. It is a phased-in implementation over about a
year-and-a-half period. So we are taking a look at that.
Mr. Harper. Sure, to be up, fully operational. And you will
look at that. And if you get to the end of this, the full
implementation, and your studies show, you know, maybe I didn't
agree with this at the beginning but it is working now, it is
possible you might have a different opinion at that point.
Mr. Morris. Well, we will take a look at the results, and
that would inform our position.
Mr. Harper. You would be fair----
Mr. Morris. Sure.
Mr. Harper [continuing]. As to look at it.
Mr. Morris. Sure.
Mr. Harper. OK.
Other examples we have had of shipments coming in, I know
that in May of this year a shipper from China refused to let
FSIS inspect, and they turned around and went back. Now, why
would they have done that?
So we are showing many examples of things that are showing
that the program is working at this point in time. And the real
issue here is about food safety. And so it may be something
that is considered a low risk, but if families in this country
are eating farm-raised catfish, we want to make sure that it is
safe for that family. It is a high risk if you are eating
something that is contaminated.
So I believe we have to give this an opportunity, that we
don't need to reopen the farm bill on this issue. It has been
decided not once but twice. Let's give this program the
opportunity to be successful, and then let's discuss it.
So, with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
That concludes the questions of the members present. We
will send followup questions and written questions from any
members who are not here to you, ask that you would please
respond to those.
Thank you very much for your testimony today.
We will now go to our second panel.
On our second panel, we have--and I will introduce them in
the order of their presentation: Kim Gorton, President and CEO
of Slade Gorton & Company, Inc.; Bart Farrell, Director of food
and beverage, Clyde's Restaurant Group; Justin Conrad, CEO, Bay
Hill Seafood, President, Libby Hill Seafood; and Steve Otwell,
Seafood Safety and Technology Emeritus, UF Food Science and
Human Nutrition, Aquatic Food Products Lab, University of
Florida.
I will ask the witnesses to take their seats.
As usual, your written testimony will be made a part of the
record. You will each be recognized for 5 minutes to summarize.
Welcome.
And the chair recognizes Ms. Gorton, 5 minutes for her
summary.
STATEMENTS OF KIM GORTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SLADE GORTON &
CO., INC.; BART FARRELL, DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE, CLYDE'S
RESTAURANT GROUP; JUSTIN CONRAD, CEO, BAY HILL SEAFOOD,
PRESIDENT, LIBBY HILL SEAFOOD; AND STEVE OTWELL, SEAFOOD SAFETY
AND TECHNOLOGY EMERITUS, UF FOOD SCIENCE AND HUMAN NUTRITION,
AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCTS LAB, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF KIM GORTON
Ms. Gorton. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of
the subcommittee, my name is Kim Gorton, and I am President and
CEO of Slade Gorton.
My company is a third-generation family business with
operations across the country. We are one of America's largest
distributors and manufacturers of fresh, frozen, and premium
value-added seafood products. We provide over 200 million
seafood meals to Americans every year.
Regarding catfish, we buy and sell roughly equal amounts of
domestic catfish and imported catfish and pangasius. So I am
coming at this issue with a balanced portfolio and an overall
interest in feeding Americans with healthy and safe food.
Until recently, the FDA regulated all seafood using the
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point program, or HACCP, as we
call it, for both domestic and imported seafood. HACCP requires
any problems to be identified and eliminated or mitigated at
their source. For imported seafood, that means problems must be
fixed thousands of miles from the U.S. border.
As someone with decades of firsthand experience in the
American seafood industry, I can say that this program works.
The seafood Americans enjoy is safe. That is to the credit of
this committee for the laws you wrote, to the FDA for its
enforcement of regulations, and to the private sector for its
implementation. In nearly 90 years, my company has had no food
safety violations for products we produce whatsoever.
I also strongly oppose the USDA's catfish inspection
program. It is a duplicative burden that will not improve
public health. To suggest that my company does not now have two
sets of seafood regulations to follow, where one did the job
before, is just plain wrong.
Supporters of this program point to a 2014 MOU between FDA
and USDA and claim that it addresses the duplication concerns.
This MOU only commits the agencies to create a list of
facilities that are subject to USDA and FDA regulations. How
does a list reduce my burden and my costs? The reality for my
small business is that we will still have two sets of
regulations to meet and two sets of regulators to deal with.
And to answer a previous question about how many companies
process both imported catfish and pangasius as well as
domestic, the answer is thousands of companies here in the
United States.
So moving this one type of fish over to a separate
regulator has also caused other problems. We at Slade Gorton
process a good deal of fresh seafood in our plants, including
domestic catfish, a product that is highly perishable and needs
to move through the supply chain in an expeditious manner. We
now must schedule a USDA inspector 2 weeks in advance of
processing and packing catfish. Most of our customers place
their orders up to 8 hours in advance.
The result? We are unable to fill customers' orders for
catfish with any consistency, so we have begun to focus on
other species. So have our customers. That out-of-touch
regulatory burden is not going to grow seafood consumption, my
business, or our economy, and it is what makes Americans so
frustrated with our government.
Pangasius, the fish targeted by supporters of the USDA
program, provides roughly 1.3 billion meals each year for
American families. These are meals that lower- and middle-
income families, such as a single mother of two in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, can afford. This is not a fish to replace lobster
and caviar. So how is a law that eliminates more than 1.3
billion affordable meals fair to the average American who w
ants to feed her family with healthy food?
Here in the U.S., we are working to combat any number of
health-related challenges such as obesity, heart disease, and
mental illness. Now, more than ever, Americans are focused on a
more healthful lifestyle and are turning to seafood, and public
health officials are encouraging Americans to eat more seafood.
So is this a good public policy, to take away the choice of
this fish, which represents 29 percent of the value white fish
in the market, and to have seafood prices increase
dramatically?
Domestic catfish sells for $5.40 a pound, and pangasius,
$1.95 a pound. My customers will not shift from pangasius to
domestic catfish. They are two different markets. They will
just skip buying any of it. This means lower sales for my
company, which could mean I have to cut my workforce.
If catfish was a health risk, I could understand this
program, yet both the CDC and USDA have cited catfish as a low-
risk food. USDA's own risk assessment suggested they did not
believe USDA oversight would improve public safety, stating the
effectiveness of the USDA regulation of catfish was unknown.
This program could place American farm exports at risk, as
some of the nations that sell us their fish have made it clear
that they will retaliate against American farm products when
they win the trade dispute over pangasius.
I want to end with a visual. This fish is regulated by FDA.
This fish is regulated by FDA. This crab is regulated by FDA. I
could bring out 98 more species that are regulated by FDA. This
product is going to be regulated by USDA, if we don't overturn
this.
So, in hearing promises from Congress that they want to
free small businesses of burdensome regulations, on Sunday,
Speaker Ryan, in an interview on ``60 Minutes,'' called for
elimination of wasteful and unnecessary regulations. I hear
promises and commitments; I see no action or accountability.
So there is a Senate-passed bill that has the support of
this committee and more than half of the House of
Representatives, the People's House. It is time to move from
promises to small business to action for small businesses.
Please urge the House leadership to call up the Senate bill to
repeal this ridiculous program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gorton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
Mr. Farrell, you are recognized, 5 minutes for your
summary.
STATEMENT OF BART FARRELL
Mr. Farrell. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, my name
is Bart Farrell. I am the director of food and beverage for the
Clyde's Restaurant Group. We are a local, privately owned
company with 14 restaurants in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and
northern Virginia. We employ 2,300 people, and hopefully you
have enjoyed a meal at the Old Ebbitt Grill, the Hamilton, or
the 1789 in Georgetown.
I am speaking today from both the Clyde's perspective but
also as a leader of more than 100 local chefs who have
expressed support for eliminating the USDA catfish program. We
do so because the program threatens an important new fishery
that can help save the Chesapeake Bay.
Several years ago, our supplier, aptly named Congressional
Seafood, introduced us to the Chesapeake Bay wild blue catfish.
It is relatively inexpensive as seafood items go, but with a
scary backstory.
These fish were introduced into the James River in the
1970s as a sport fish for recreational fishermen.
Unfortunately, these are apex predators with no known predators
of their own. They are taking over the Chesapeake Bay and
beyond. According to NOAA, these fish now account for a
staggering 75 percent of the biomass in the James and
Rappahannock Rivers and are increasing in population in many of
the rivers and tributaries in the bay. They are consuming the
bay's native fisheries, including rockfish, also known as
striped bass, blue crabs, white perch, shad, and herring.
According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, one of the
primary ways to reduce the population of these blue catfish and
ensure the survival of the native fisheries is to establish and
grow a commercial fishery for blue catfish. And that is what
our suppliers and others have started to do.
These fish are becoming more and more popular at Clyde's
and other restaurants. Our staff are educated on this evasive
species, and our customers enjoy eating a quality, good-tasting
fish and have a sense of civic pride in doing their part to
help save the bay.
Let me briefly explain how this tasty fish gets from water
to your plate around here. Watermen in the Chesapeake Bay
region, North Carolina, or Delaware catch the fish. Processors
cut the fish into fillets that chefs like. Distributors send
the fish to retailers or restaurants. And consumers order the
fish at restaurants or buy at shops and take home to cook. Each
of these steps is essential to getting the fish to market. A
break in any step will eliminate the market.
I am going to share an example of this market from one
company. In the past 2 years, Murray L. Nixon Fishery of
Edenton, North Carolina, alone has bought an estimated 2.5
million pounds of catfish with an estimated value of $1 million
to the watermen. These numbers have increased over the past 5
years due to the increase of the blue catfish in their area.
The catfish processing at Murray L. Nixon Fishery allows this
small business to keep a local full-time staff of cutters
working and, in that way, support local labor. That, in turn,
keeps watermen working.
The USDA catfish program is requiring our suppliers to
follow regulations of both the USDA for only catfish and FDA
for all other seafood that they process. While wild blue
catfish is good business, it will not justify the significant
expense of capital and ongoing costs associated with meeting
USDA's different regulatory requirements. As a result, many
processors and distributors have indicated that they will leave
the wild blue catfish business unless regulation of catfish is
returned to the FDA.
Such a rational business decision will mean the supply
chain between local watermen and restaurants will be broken.
The results will be watermen losing the opportunity to be
employed throughout the year, restaurants and stores lose the
ability to sell delicious fish, and, sadly, the Chesapeake Bay
and rivers will continue to be plagued by this invasive
species. Who knows how far these fish will spread?
Attached to my written testimony is a letter signed by more
than 120 outraged chefs urging Congress to eliminate the USDA
program. We want to encourage the House to take up the Senate
bill before you leave and rid us all of this wasteful and
burdensome program.
As someone who has spent many hours fishing and hunting on
the Chesapeake Bay, I trust you will do your part to ensure
that the bay stays relevant and healthy with all of its native
species for generations to come. A failure to act will say much
about Congress' lack of commitment to save the bay, a true
national treasure.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Mr. Conrad, 5 minutes for summary.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN CONRAD
Mr. Conrad. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Justin Conrad. I am the president of Libby Hill
Seafood Restaurants and Bay Hill Seafood Sales, both based in
Greensboro, North Carolina. I am a proud member of the National
Restaurant Association, an organization my father, Ken Conrad,
proudly served as chairman.
My grandfather started Libby Hill in 1953. Our third-
generation company is the kind of small business that
politicians like to talk about when they say they want to grow
the economy. We employ roughly 150 people in North Carolina.
The FDA's HACCP system works for our seafood distribution
and restaurant businesses. Through the years, my family has
served millions of meals. We have never had a food safety
incident.
So if we have never had a problem and FDA is our regulator,
what exact problem was Congress trying to solve when it shifted
regulation of catfish from FDA to USDA in 2008? I can tell you
this: It was not about food safety.
The catfish program is a caricature of all things that
upset the average American about Washington. It wastes taxpayer
dollars. USDA will spend $14 million to inspect fish FDA
effectively inspected for $700,000. It has been cited as a
waste by the GAO 10 times since 2011. This program does not
improve food safety. Catfish, both imported and domestic, is a
low-risk food.
Our suppliers, though, must now have one food safety system
to meet FDA's regulation for pollock, flounder, shrimp, and
other seafood items they provide and a second system for USDA.
How can Congress claim that requiring us to have two regulatory
systems to oversee the same plant is not duplicative or a
burden to small business?
The catfish program requires my suppliers to gain USDA
inspectors' blessing for their operating schedule 2 weeks in
advance. Think about that. They cannot process fish without
Federal approval of a private company's work schedule and
having an inspector there. They need special dispensation to
work over the weekend. Restaurants do not work on a Monday-
through-Friday schedule.
How is our economy supposed to grow when a private company
must seek Federal Government approval for its operating
schedule 336 hours in advance? Those of us who believe in a
free market relish competition. By contrast, crony capitalists
seek to use rules to prevent competition. The USDA program is
one such of those programs. It will eliminate all imported
competition and most domestic competition. How can Congress
favor a program that destroys small business in favor of two to
three large companies that can afford the capital cost of USDA
regulation?
This catfish program will only increase the cost of food
for American families. Pangasius today is the sixth most
popular seafood item Americans enjoy. It represents about 29
percent of value white fish that restaurants and retailers
offer. Basic economics say if you eliminate 29 percent of a
supply, prices will rise sharply. How can Congress tell an
American family that it established a program that will not
improve their health but it will cost them more when they try
to enjoy a fish meal at Libby Hill restaurants?
There is an increasing concerning that the catfish program
will set a dangerous precedent of moving other seafood species
from FDA to USDA. Catfish farmers have publicly stated tilapia
should be subject to this burden. I heard from a colleague that
USDA investigation and enforcement agents came to their office
on Monday and warned them they must register with the USDA for
their tilapia imports. This is a company that does not import
or process catfish, and yet they have USDA agents flashing
their badges and telling them to register with the USDA for
tilapia.
I also understand that some shrimp companies have already
requested to be added to the program. This will destroy the
shrimp industry in North Carolina. I have personally been told
by members of the shrimping community in North Carolina that,
rather than be saddled by additional regulations from a new
government agency, they would opt to close their doors.
How does this help local seafood markets, restaurants, and
workers who depend on these products to support their families?
Unless the House acts now to reverse this awful policy, some
Members of Congress will work to remove FDA from seafood
altogether.
A tip of the hat to the Senate for passing S.J. Resolution
28 and to many of you for recognizing the opportunity to save
small business from the onus of another regulatory burden. It
is my sincerest hope that you can persuade House leadership to
bring this resolution to a vote before you go home for
Christmas.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Dr. Otwell, 5 minutes for his summary.
STATEMENT OF STEVE OTWELL
Mr. Otwell. Chairman Pitt and members of the subcommittee,
I thank you for the opportunity to share my views on what I
consider an unnecessary USDA catfish inspection program.
My name is Dr. Steve Otwell. I am an emeritus professor
from the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department at the
University of Florida. I retired there in the year 2014 after
serving 23 years at the university, working on all aspects of
seafood safety and quality both through research and training.
During this time, I served on three National Academy of
Sciences committees which advised congressional decisions on
programs for seafood safety in our Nation.
I currently in my retirement am director of something known
as the Seafood HACCP Alliance, which now includes a cadre of
over 400 qualified instructors working in the field to advance
FDA's proven HACCP approach for seafood safety.
As someone who has been on the front line of seafood
safety, I can attest that the USDA regulation of catfish is
unnecessary and, from a public health perspective, is an
unjustified use of government resources.
It is a fact that farm-raised catfish from both domestic
and international sources do not pose a significant or unique
food safety burden that warrants additional or different
Federal regulation. A review of documented illnesses in the
United States reveal that fish, including catfish, is one the
safest sources of muscle protein consumed in the United States
and catfish is one of the safest fish selections.
Foodborne illnesses reported to the Centers for Disease
Control since 1998 show that only one confirmed outbreak has
been associated with the catfish product, and this was not a
processing error. That is one outbreak out of 19,000 food
outbreaks that have been reported over 17 years. That is a
0.005 percent occurrence of outbreaks over almost two decades.
In addition, the CDC has found that the outbreaks of
foodborne illnesses attributable to fish consumed in the United
States has significantly declined. Sixty-five outbreaks
occurred in the years 1998 through 2004, whereas there were
only 32 outbreaks during the years 2005 and 2012. The CDC
report cited that HACCP principles mandated by FDA are the
primary reason for this pattern. This was the same period when
HACCP became implemented in the United States and, likewise,
the same period when catfish consumption in the United States
began to escalate.
The prevailing concern for imported catfish has been misuse
of antibiotics. While the use of any unapproved drugs is indeed
unacceptable, this challenge is not unique to imported catfish.
FDA regulation and education efforts, aligned with the State
authorities and cooperating nations, have made a significant
impact in reducing the use of unapproved drugs over the last
decade. And this trend will indeed continue to increase with
the growing dependence on farm-raised product.
The preventative controls structure of FDA's HACCP program
has indeed recently been used as a model for many rules under
the Food Safety Modernization Act. Likewise, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture used the FDA HACCP protocol in
modeling some of their approaches.
In addition, since 1995, the Seafood HACCP Alliance
education and training program has maintained one of the most
highly recognized and copied seafood safety education programs
in the world. This training program is certified by the
Association of Food and Drug Officials, which represents the
food safety authorities in every State of our Nation.
To date, over 45,000 seafood inspectors, plant workers, and
quality assurance managers have been trained through this
program through every State, every U.S. territory, and all
nations exporting seafood to the United States. Training
included over 90 percent of the catfish processing operations
in the United States.
Concluding, the FDA's HACCP program has a long and
impressive record of keeping Americans and the seafood we love
safe. Changing regulations for the sake of changing, without an
actual food safety benefit, unnecessarily fractures the system,
and, ironically, it makes the products less safe. The cost of
food safety man-hours and focus required to comply with two
separate regulations by separate Federal authorities in one
facility can have unintended yet very real consequences that we
should not ignore.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Otwell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
That concludes the opening statements. We will now go to
questioning. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for that
purpose.
Let me just ask all of you a couple of questions, and we
will start with Ms. Gorton.
Was this USDA program put in place because of a food safety
issue?
Ms. Gorton. Mr. Chairman, no, in my opinion, it was not in
place because of any food safety issue.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Farrell, your opinion?
Mr. Farrell. No, it was not.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Conrad?
Mr. Conrad. Mr. Chairman, no, it was not.
Mr. Pitts. Dr. Otwell?
Mr. Otwell. No, it was not, sir.
Mr. Pitts. All right.
Again, I will do a question to all of you. How does the
USDA food safety inspection program impact the catfish market
and the prices for consumers and your costs of doing business?
Ms. Gorton?
Ms. Gorton. Well, effectively, it is working to eliminate
my ability to process fresh catfish, because I am not able to
schedule the inspection in a way that meets our customers'
order patterns. And so it is effectively eliminating domestic
catfish and imported catfish from our line of products that
we're able to offer. And we saw some of the Nation's largest
retailers, many of whom are based in the South, who want this
product.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Farrell?
Mr. Farrell. Well, for us, it would only apply to the wild
catfish. And we would be forced to stop selling it because our
local seafood suppliers don't want to have to deal with two
government agencies. They only want to have to deal with the
FDA.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Conrad?
Mr. Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our restaurants are
family-style restaurants, and we serve blue-collar workers and
working-class families. And the access to low-cost protein is
vitally important to restaurants like ours. And any time you
eliminate that low-cost protein and drive consumers to other
proteins, it adversely affects our consumers and our customers.
Mr. Pitts. Dr. Otwell?
Mr. Otwell. The regulation will confuse selection and limit
access to a resource that is preferred and has health benefits.
Mr. Pitts. Dr. Otwell, if the FDA was in charge of catfish
inspection, would they have been able to stop the imported
shipments that Mr. Harper mentioned?
Mr. Otwell. They were aware of these. In fact, some of the
information that directed some of the USDA scrutiny was based
on prior work of the Food and Drug Administration. Their
targeting methods of suspect product gives you some route for
scrutiny.
So the point is the FDA program, by being science-based and
focused on reasonably likely things to occur, as they follow in
their legislation, gave us enough alert to problematic areas.
And USDA used that information to help them as well.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Conrad, you work with catfish suppliers,
right?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pitts. What has been their experience with the program?
What has their experience been like? How has it impacted their
business?
Mr. Conrad. Mr. Chairman, we work with both imported and
domestic catfish producers. And I can tell you, it is a poorly
kept secret that the catfish industry itself is somewhat
divided on this issue, if you will.
Mr. Pitts. There are rumors that this program could be
expanded to include shrimp. I think you mentioned that. What
would happen to your business if shrimp were regulated by the
USDA?
Mr. Conrad. We actually source quite a bit of domestic
shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico. However, in the United States,
a large percentage of the shrimp consumed is imported shrimp.
So if you see that increased cost go to the shrimp market as
well, you could see a substantial cost increase of the domestic
product. That would make it extremely hard for us to continue
offering those products to our consumers.
Mr. Pitts. Ms. Gorton, what is your response to that
question?
Ms. Gorton. So, at a time where food prices are rising, and
particularly seafood prices, at the same time we are asking
American consumers to consume more seafood. If farm-raised
products like shrimp or tilapia or farm-raised salmon were to
fall under USDA regulation, our costs would increase
dramatically. It would severely impact my business in
absolutely detrimental ways.
Mr. Pitts. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes
the ranking member, Mr. Green, 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank our panel for being here.
We heard at FDA that catfish is a low-risk commodity, a
view I think the panel shares. I think it is noteworthy to
highlight that Ms. Gorton stated in her testimony that you are
more likely to be struck by lightning than become sick from
eating catfish.
However, I want to hear from more of the group about the
safety profile of catfish and if there are unique
characteristics that would require the product to be regulated
differently.
Mr. Otwell, your testimony highlighted that catfish is a
low-risk product. Can you further explain on how you came to
this conclusion?
Mr. Otwell. I base this conclusion on the evidence that
there haven't been any reports of illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product, the dramatic historical increase
in consumption over the last two decades, and there is no
evidence that this is causing problems.
The prevailing concern which there is evidence for, that
there is some misuse of antibiotics, or drugs, if you will, in
this product and other aquaculture products, does not impose an
immediate food safety risk. The primary concern that that is
introducing is the concern for the--you may have heard the term
increasing microbial resistance in the environment by using
excessive antibiotics. This, again, is not unique to catfish or
aquaculture as a whole; it is prolific throughout our whole use
of foods and medications.
So the point is FDA is aware of that, they have focused on
it. And it goes back to the 2 or 4 percent number that is
thrown out about their inspection. They are targeting that
specific concern, and that is why we are aware of it in this
room today.
Mr. Green. OK.
Ms. Gorton, given that your business is experienced in
processing over 100 types of seafood products, are you aware of
any safety issues unique to catfish that would necessitate this
extra regulatory system?
Ms. Gorton. No, Congressman, I am not. And, in fact, we
have been processing both domestic and imported catfish for
years and have had no food safety concerns or violations.
Mr. Green. Let me go to the safety of the imports. As we
have heard in testimony from various witnesses, catfish is a
low-risk fish. Salmonella is the primary food safety hazard
associated with catfish. We have also heard that the volume of
seafood imports has increased substantially and that catfish
accounts for about 4 percent of the seafood imports.
I think we all agree that safety is important of the food
supply. However, the CDC reports that, despite the increased
risk of imported seafood, the U.S. experienced a decrease in
outbreaks of foodborne illnesses related to fish consumption.
Going back to Mr. Otwell, if you are familiar with the
Nation's seafood inspection programs, to what can we attribute
the decline of foodborne illnesses related to fish consumption
in America? In your opinion, does FDA's longstanding risk-based
program play a role in that decrease?
Mr. Otwell. The Centers for Disease Control--that was a
long question.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Otwell. I will try to get some of it. But what I heard
is--the Centers for Disease Control is probably the best
authority of keeping responsible data to reflect that the
illnesses from consumption of fish in the United States have
dramatically increased since the implementation of HACCP. That
is the strongest endorsement for the FDA HACCP program.
I don't know if that answers your question. It was a long
question. Was there another point I should speak to?
Mr. Green. Well, does the FDA's longstanding risk-based
program play a role in this decrease?
Mr. Otwell. Absolutely. You can point to one dramatic
thing, and a previous GAO report also discovered this. The
increased awareness that HACCP has brought and the
communication, not only between companies but between
countries, of dealing with the prevailing issues and the
possible controls to prevent the problem, as opposed to the
approach that USDA has, to catch the problem. Prevention is a
far more cost-effective approach.
Mr. Green. OK.
On the panel, as business owners, you would be the first
line of defense if someone becomes ill from being served by
you, and you have the confidence that the catfish you purchase
is safe to sell and serve your customers. And you are satisfied
with the FDA alone doing the inspection instead of the
Department of Agriculture. Is that true?
Mr. Farrell. That is very true. We have a tremendous
responsibility to our customers and to our staff to provide
safe meals, and if we thought for a New York second there was a
problem with any product, whether it is seafood or otherwise,
we wouldn't serve it.
Mr. Green. Well, you are the canary in the coal mine,
because----
Mr. Farrell. Unfortunately.
Mr. Green [continuing]. Your customers, I am sure, will
tell you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the vice chairman, Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gorton, in your testimony, you note that the USDA FSIS
will require countries that export catfish to establish
equivalence standards. What do countries have to do to
establish equivalency?
Ms. Gorton. My understanding of that, Congressman, is that
they need to meet USDA protocol, which is based on meat and
poultry packing in the United States.
My further understanding is that even countries such as
Canada, one of our closest trading partners with whom we share
a border, has taken 5, 6, 7 years to reach equivalency. So,
effectively, if this rule is not repealed, we are going to be
looking at a significant period of time with potentially not
having access to this critical, low-cost product.
Mr. Guthrie. So, obviously, this would impact global trade?
Ms. Gorton. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. And so can you explain how this does not meet
basic trade obligations? And what would happen if one of these
countries decided to go to the WTO?
Ms. Gorton. A lawyer is probably better able to answer that
question than I am. However, because we do deal with a number
of exporters from whom we import, they have made their position
clear, in that they would seek to bring forth a WTO case. And I
also understand that there have been a fair amount of opinions
that they would be successful with that.
The concern then becomes what would they do to retaliate,
and that is where our farmed products here in the U.S. would
potentially come under fire.
Mr. Guthrie. So it would definitely affect global trade.
Thanks. Thank you for that.
Ms. Gorton. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Guthrie. Dr. Otwell, advocates of the program claim a
100 percent inspection system is better. Can you explain why
this claim is false and why the inspection programs do not
ensure quality?
Mr. Otwell. The term ``100 percent inspection'' is based on
the fact that you would have an inspector on site at all times
or some equivalent thereof. And it gives the implication that
you are going to visualize all the problems that are occurring.
That is the best way you can police something, is to see it
happen and prevent it, to catch it, if you will.
The prevailing concern, as we have noted here today, is the
illegal use of antibiotics. That is the only problem we have
been able to speak to. That is not something you can see and
catch with 100 percent surveillance. It requires analysis and
sampling, as the gentleman had been pointing out here earlier.
And FDA, very much aware of the cost and burden in time of
sampling, have come up with a targeted approach that is cost-
effective based on science and suspect product. You can't do
100 percent sampling. That is a false implication.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
And that completes my questions. I yield back my time.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
appreciate it. And I appreciate your service to our country and
your leadership and mentoring as we have gone through these
committee processes on how to do things right since I got here
in Congress some time ago. But do appreciate it very, very
much.
OK. Mr. Conrad, you indicated that your business would be
affected if USDA took over shrimp. And I implied, but I want to
make sure I was making the right connection, that you would buy
your shrimp from foreign sources because they would be able to
undercut the American market, although it is fairly small, they
would be able to undercut the American market, and you are
currently buying American shrimp. Is that what I understood?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir. I----
Mr. Griffith. All right. I got it wrong. You can't tell me
that Libby Hill would stop selling shrimp.
Mr. Conrad. No, sir, absolutely not.
Mr. Griffith. So----
Mr. Conrad. The price would have to be passed on to our
consumers, Congressman. And I think that is where we are with
catfish right now. Consumers are going to be paying the bill,
in my opinion, for a problem that didn't exist, sir.
Mr. Griffith. OK.
Mr. Conrad. And I think that would be continued should the
USDA move into shrimp as well.
Mr. Griffith. Now, let's talk about a little tilapia.
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Griffith. You said that somebody from the USDA exceeded
their authority. And, serving on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, this is not shocking, that an agency would overstep
their authority. We see that all the time in lots of areas,
unfortunately.
But you are saying that you got an oral report--and we are
not stating it as definitive fact, but that you got an oral
report that somebody who raises tilapia in your region had the
USDA visit them and say you are going to have to register, even
though all they raise is tilapia?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir. It was a company that does not
currently import catfish but is in the tilapia business, not
necessarily in my region, but was visited by a USDA inspector.
Mr. Griffith. OK. But they are a business that currently
imports tilapia, or buys American, or does both foreign and
American tilapia?
Mr. Conrad. I am not sure about the American part, but they
are in the tilapia business internationally.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Because that would be a concern,
as you may be aware. Although they don't sell to Libby Hill, I
have a large tilapia indoor facility in my district that ships
to the Northeast live fish. So I have to keep an eye on that.
Ms. Gorton, I have to ask, because I once worked at
McDonald's many, many years ago, back in the 1970s, were you
the providers of our Filet-O-Fish sandwich? Because I know that
there was a Gorton's company that provided all our fish at that
time.
Ms. Gorton. No, Congressman, but to clear up any confusion,
my great-great-grandfather started what is now Gorton's of
Gloucester, who provides McDonald's with their sandwiches. And
my grandfather left that business in 1928 and started our
company.
Mr. Griffith. OK. So it is a family connection but not the
same company.
Ms. Gorton. Exactly.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I do appreciate that.
And you indicated it would be really hard for you all. Is
it just that it would force a lot of folks out of the catfish
market, as Mr. Conrad has said?
Ms. Gorton. Yes, sir. And just as he also shared, it would
force us to pass along a price increase to consumers, who
really are already paying high prices for all seafood and just
can't afford it. And so they are going to look at alternative
proteins, and I, for one, Congressman, don't want to be eating
bugs in 20 years. So we are really committed to seafood.
Mr. Griffith. I can appreciate that very much.
Well, I thank you all for being here.
And, obviously, Mr. Farrell, I read your testimony and
asked questions earlier off of that. And that affects why you
all seem to buy a lot from North Carolina. It is probably fish
being caught in Virginia and other places and the Chesapeake
Bay. And so we want to make sure that that wild-caught catfish,
particularly the blue catfish, is still available for your
restaurants, because it helps the bay and it helps put money in
the pockets of Virginia businesses.
Mr. Farrell. And can I just say that a lot of the fish that
we are buying is actually from the Chesapeake Bay region.
Mr. Griffith. That is what I suspected, yes, sir.
Well, I appreciate it very much.
And, again, Mr. Chairman, it is with some sadness that I
yield back for the last time to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Thank you, all the members, for your kind comments.
That concludes the questions of members present. We will
have some followup questions. Other members may have written
questions. We will send them to you. We ask that you please
respond.
Thank you very much for coming in. It has been very, very
informative.
I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record. I ask that members submit their
questions by the close of business on Wednesday, December 21.
Excellent hearing for our final one. I think it is time to
go to lunch. Thank you.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today's hearing is a valuable opportunity to hear more
about the USDA Catfish Inspection Program. The Energy and
Commerce Committee on a bipartisan basis, along with the
nonpartisan government watchdog, the General Accountability
Office, have warned about the harm, waste, and duplication of
the USDA Catfish Inspection Program. Rather than improve our
country's food safety, the program will further fracture our
food safety inspection programs. In addition, the USDA catfish
program will harm businesses and will increase prices for
consumers and ultimately harm the catfish market.
That is why the Senate voted overwhelmingly under the
Congressional Review Act to reject the USDA Catfish Inspection
Program. I appreciate our witnesses for being here and for
Health Subcommittee Chairman Pitts holding this hearing today
so we can more closely examine this important issue.
Before I yield the remainder of my time, I want to take a
moment to recognize Mr. Pitts, the subcommittee chairman of the
past six years, who is retiring at the end of this Congress.
Joe Pitts has been a leader for some of the committee's
greatest accomplishments: reforming how Medicare pays America's
physicians, improving the safety of our nation's drug supply
chain, advancing dozens of bills to improve our nation's public
health, and helping shepherd through the 21st Century Cures Act
that will land shortly on President Obama's desk.
Joe, as a chairman your accomplishments and contributions
are tremendous. You have been an unwavering and outstanding
partner during your tenure as chairman, particularly as we
journeyed down the path to Cures. The roundtables, the
hearings, the markups, you were here pushing every step of the
way and I cannot thank you enough. You have been a strong,
gracious, and remarkable leader for this committee, leading one
of the most productive subcommittees on Capitol Hill. Thank you
for your tireless efforts and your friendship. I wish you
nothing but the best to you and Ginny in this next chapter.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]