[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1166-E1167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE IMPORTED FOOD SAFETY ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 18, 1998

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Imported Food 
Safety Act of 1998 which will give the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) new authority and much needed resources to protect American 
consumers from unsafe imported food. I am very pleased to have 15 of my 
Democratic colleagues on the Commerce Committee joining me as original 
cosponsors in introducing this important legislation. It is my sincere 
hope that many more Members, including my Republican colleagues, will 
soon join us in responding to consumer concerns over the safety of the 
food we eat.
  U.S. food safety standards are among the highest in the world. In 
spite of this fact, millions of Americans each year are unknowing 
victims of illness attributable to food-borne bacteria, viruses, 
parasites, and pesticides. According to a recent General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report, as many as 33 million Americans each year become 
ill from the foods they eat. We also know that many cases of food-borne 
illness are not reported. GAO, therefore, estimates the total number of 
food-borne illnesses to exceed 81 million each year. Among these cases, 
more than 9,100 result in death. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Economic Research Service estimates ``the costs for medical treatment 
and productivity losses associated with these illnesses and deaths 
range from $6.6 billion to $37.1 billion.''
  Increased media attention on food-borne illness outbreaks has turned, 
once unfamiliar scientific names, into household words. Recently, an 
outbreak of food poisoning from salmonella in cereal was reported in 11 
states. E. Coli 0157 has been found in apple juice and hamburger, 
cyclospora in raspberries, Listeria in ice cream, Cryptosporidium in 
water, and viral Hepatitis A in frozen strawberries served in a school 
lunch program.
  The population of our country is growing and changing. Exposure to 
food-borne pathogens is particularly dangerous for the most vulnerable 
members of the public, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, 
those with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other persons whose immune systems are 
compromised.
  The number of food-borne illness outbreaks has increased in recent 
years, and so has the volume of foreign food imports coming into our 
country. In its recent report, GAO said that the Federal government 
cannot ensure that imported foods are safe. The FDA, itself has 
acknowledged that it is ``in danger of being overwhelmed by the volume 
of products reaching U.S. ports.''
  The volume of imported food has doubled over the last five years, 
while the frequency of FDA inspections has declined sharply during this 
same period of time. More than 38 percent of the fresh fruit and more 
than 12 percent of the fresh vegetables that Americans now consume each 
year are imported.
  Most Americans would be alarmed to learn that just a small fraction, 
less than two per cent, of the 2.7 million food entries coming into 
this country are ever inspected or tested by the FDA. Even fewer, only 
0.2 percent of food entries, are tested for microbiological 
contamination.
  In a recent letter, however, FDA said that it ``has no assignments 
for monitoring imported fresh fruits and vegetables for presence of 
pathogenic microorganisms.'' In fiscal year 1997, all of the 251 
microbiological samples FDA collected that year, were in response to 
food-borne illness outbreaks. None were for preventive detection.
  The outrageous and wholly intolerable conclusion one must draw is 
that American consumers are being used as guinea pigs.
  FDA has stated that there is a ``critical need for rapid, accurate 
methods to detect, identify and quantify pathogens. . . .'' The testing 
methods currently being used at FDA can take up to two weeks to isolate 
and identify pathogens in food samples. What is needed are quicker 
detection methods, or ``real time tests'' that yield results in 
approximately 60 minutes, to identify pathogenic contamination, 
especially at busy ports of entry. But currently, FDA is not funding 
research to develop these tests, nor do they have plans to develop 
these tests in the future.
  It is clear that FDA is lacking the necessary resources to regulate 
the global food marketplace. Unlike the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), FDA does not have the authority to deny product entry at the 
border or to permit imports only from agency approved suppliers in 
foreign countries. The GAO reported that FDA's procedures for ensuring 
that unsafe imported foods do not reach consumers are vulnerable to 
abuse by unscrupulous importers. According to GAO, some importers 
ignore FDA's orders to return, to destroy or to re-export their 
shipments. By the time FDA decides to inspect shipments, in some cases, 
the importers have already marketed the goods.
  In response to this crisis, the President has said FDA needs 
increased resources, more authority, and improved research and 
technology. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 addresses each of 
these points.
  This legislation provides additional resources in the form of a 
modest user fee on imported foods to increase the number of FDA 
inspectors at ports of entry in the U.S. Proceeds from the user fee 
would also be used for a ``Manhattan Project'' to develop ``real time'' 
tests (results within 60 minutes) to detect E. Coli, salmonella, and 
other microbial and pesticide contaminants in imported food. Without 
tests that produce quick results, there is no way FDA inspectors 
can detect pathogens in imported food before it is distributed to 
consumers. Finally, the legislation gives FDA authority, comparable to 
that of the USDA with respect to imported poultry and meat, to stop 
unsafe food at the border and to assure that is ultimate disposition is 
not America's dinner table.

  The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 focuses on these three key 
areas: authority; research; and resources.


                 Increased Regulatory Authority for FDA

  The recent GAO study of the imported food safety program points out 
that: ``In some cases, when the Food and Drug Administration decides to 
inspect shipments, the importers have already marketed the goods.'' 
``[W]hen the [FDA] finds contamination and calls for importers to 
return shipments to the Customs Service for destruction or reexport, 
importers ignore this requirement or substitute other goods for the 
original shipment. Such cases of noncompliance seldom result in a 
significant penalty.''
  FDA currently lacks the authority to impose criminal penalties on 
importers that circumvent FDA's import procedures. FDA reliance on the 
importers' bond agreement with Customs, has left the agency without an 
adequate economic deterrent to the distribution of adulterated 
products. Current penalties, namely the forfeiture of a bond, are 
inadequate and are regarded as a cost of doing business. Under the 
current bond system, GAO reports that ``even if the maximum damages had 
been collected, the importer would have still made a profit on the sale 
of the shipment.'' This bill would subject such behavior to tough 
penalties that will be a strong deterrent to circumventing the current 
regulatory system. These penalties are the same as those used by USDA 
in their imported meat inspection program.
  The bill would also prohibit an importer from commercially 
distributing foreign-produced food, without FDA approval. An importer 
whose food is refused entry by FDA would be responsible for the 
disposition of re-exportation of such food products. Failing to do so 
would make the importer subject to penalties under the Federal Food 
Drug and Cosmetic Act.


 Development of ``Real-Time'' Laboratory methods to Test for Pathogens 
                    to be Used in Border Inspections

  FDA wrote in a January 16, 1998 letter that there is a ``critical 
need for rapid, accurate

[[Page E1167]]

methods to detect, identify and quantify pathogens in a wide variety of 
environments . . .''
  The methods for detecting a wide range of bacterial, viral, and 
parasitic pathogens in or on fresh fruits and vegetables are limited . 
. .''
  This bill would provide additional funds for research and development 
on test methods to detect E. coli, salmonella and other disease-causing 
microorganisms and pesticide residues in imported food, as it enters 
the U.S. and before it is distributed to the public. The bill requires 
FDA to devote resources to developing such tests within three years of 
the date of enactment. This funding will be in addition to FDA 
appropriated funds and will be collected through a modest, $20 per 
entry, user fee on imported food.


                       User Fee for Imported Food

  This legislation also provides for a modest user fee to be paid to 
the FDA for each entry of foreign food imported into the U.S. It is 
clear that the current Majority in Congress is not prepared to 
appropriate funds needed to protect Americans from unsafe food. Funds 
for the President's food safety initiative were recently zeroed out at 
the Senate Appropriations Committee and in the House, the President's 
initiative received only a token funding level.
  A user fee on imported food, like the user fee in the Imported Food 
Safety Act, would ensure that FDA has much needed resources to protect 
American consumers from unsafe imported food. The proceeds from this 
user fee would be used to fund much needed research efforts on ``real 
time'' test methods for detecting pathogenic contaminants in food and 
to fund increased FDA efforts to inspect foreign fresh and packaged 
foods coming into the country.
  The U.S. imports approximately 2.7 million entries of food each year 
that are valued at approximately $36 billion. The bill provides that a 
per entry fee of no more than $20 would be imposed on food imports. 
This fee is not based on the value of a shipment of imported food. 
Instead, it is an amount based on the cost of processing and approving 
food imports, including the cost of sampling and testing.


                       Country-of-Origin Labeling

  Finally, this bill requires country-of-origin labeling of all 
imported foods. Restaurants and other prepared-food service 
establishments are exempted from complying with the country-of-origin 
labeling requirement. We often forget that the toughest, and many times 
the best, regulators are America's consumers. This bill gives consumers 
information that allows them to make informed choices with respect to 
the conditions under which the food they buy is produced.
  Maintaining public confidence in the safety of the food supply is of 
paramount importance. People must be confident that the food they 
purchase and provide for themselves and their families is safe. 
Country-of-origin labeling will empower consumers, giving them greater 
information on which to base their food purchasing decisions. This is 
especially important in view of the now all too frequent outbreaks of 
food-borne illness.
  We need to focus our efforts on eradicating food-borne illness in 
this country. As our consumption of imported food continues to grow, we 
must find ways of ensuring that foreign produced food meets our health 
and safety standards. It simply is no longer acceptable for government 
to blame its failures on the increased volume of imports or the fact 
that detection methods are not available.
  FDA must be given the authority, the resources, and the 
responsibility to ensure that foreign produced foods get to the 
consumers of this country, if, and only if, they meet U.S. health and 
safety standards.
  The Imported Food Safety Act of 1998 would give FDA, for the first 
time, the authority, resources, and responsibility it needs to tackle 
this problem in a meaningful way. This is good public health policy, 
and the American people deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.

                          ____________________