Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on	 
Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance	 
Transparency (17-APR-08, GAO-08-686T).				 
                                                                 
In fiscal year 2007, more than 150 million cattle, sheep, and	 
other animals destined for human consumption were slaughtered in 
the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)	 
Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for enforcing  
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which mandates that  
animals are handled and slaughtered humanely. GAO reported on	 
USDA's efforts to enforce HMSA in 2004 (Humane Methods of	 
Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces  
Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247). More broadly, GAO has also  
issued many reports that address federal oversight of the U.S.	 
food safety system. This testimony focuses on (1) GAO's 2004	 
report on the frequency and scope of reported HMSA violations and
enforcement actions by USDA, (2) information on trends in	 
staffing and funding for USDA food inspections, and (3) 	 
information on overall federal oversight of food safety. To	 
provide this new information, GAO analyzed personnel and funding 
data from USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, and	 
interviewed USDA food safety inspection officials.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-686T					        
    ACCNO:   A81726						        
  TITLE:     Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public	      
Reporting on Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and  
Enhance Transparency						 
     DATE:   04/17/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Animal husbandry					 
	     Animal welfare					 
	     Animals						 
	     Cattle						 
	     Environmental legislation				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Food and drug law					 
	     Food facilities					 
	     Food inspection					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Livestock						 
	     Livestock products 				 
	     Meat inspection					 
	     Noncompliance					 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Poultry inspection 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Standards						 
	     Government agency oversight			 
	     Transparency					 
	     GAO High Risk Series				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-686T

   

     * [1]Background
     * [2]FSIS Has Taken Actions Intended to Improve Its Records on Hu
     * [3]FSIS's Budget Has Increased as Staffing Has Declined
     * [4]Federal Oversight of Food Safety Is a High-Risk Area that Ne

          * [5]Order by Mail or Phone

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-686T 
entitled 'Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on 
Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance 
Transparency' which was released on April 18, 2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT: 

Thursday, April 17, 2008: 

Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: 

Public Reporting on Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and 
Enhance Transparency: 

Statement of Lisa Shames, Director Natural Resources and Environment: 

GAO-08-686T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-686T, testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of 
Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal year 2007, more than 150 million cattle, sheep, and other 
animals destined for human consumption were slaughtered in the United 
States. The U.S. Department of Agricultureï¿½s (USDA) Food Safety and 
Inspection Service is responsible for enforcing the Humane Methods of 
Slaughter Act (HMSA), which mandates that animals are handled and 
slaughtered humanely. GAO reported on USDAï¿½s efforts to enforce HMSA in 
2004 (Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems 
but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247). More broadly, GAO 
has also issued many reports that address federal oversight of the U.S. 
food safety system. 

This testimony focuses on (1) GAOï¿½s 2004 report on the frequency and 
scope of reported HMSA violations and enforcement actions by USDA, (2) 
information on trends in staffing and funding for USDA food 
inspections, and (3) information on overall federal oversight of food 
safety. To provide this new information, GAO analyzed personnel and 
funding data from USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, and 
interviewed USDA food safety inspection officials. 

What GAO Found: 

In January 2004, GAO reported that incomplete and inconsistent 
inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and 
scope of HMSA violations, inspectors did not always document violations 
of the act, and they did not consistently document the scope and 
severity of each incident. GAO also reported that enforcement actions 
to address noncompliance with the act were inconsistent, and that USDA 
was not using consistent criteria to determine when to suspend plant 
operations in cases of serious or repeated violations. The Congress has 
urged USDA to report annually on trends in compliance with humane 
slaughter methods. Such public reporting can enhance transparency, but 
USDAï¿½s most recent report was in March 2003 and relied on incomplete 
data. For example, that report said very few infractions were for 
inhumane treatment, but GAO found that at least one-fourth of the 
infractions were for ineffective stunning which fails to meet humane 
standards. USDA has taken actions to address the recommendations GAO 
made in 2004 about oversight of HMSA. However, GAO has not evaluated 
the effectiveness of these actions. 

USDA faces resource challenges that may make it difficult for it to 
enforce HMSA and ensure the safety of the food supply. Although USDAï¿½s 
budget for food safety-related activities has increased since 1988, 
staffing for these activities has declined from its highest level in 
1995. Agency officials noted the overall decline is due, in part, to 
consolidation in the meat industry, resulting in fewer facilities. In 
2004, GAO found that USDA lacked detailed information on how much time 
its inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter activities, 
making it difficult to determine if the number of inspectors is 
adequate. USDA has taken actions to address most of GAOï¿½s 
recommendations for assessing its resource needs for HMSA, but GAO has 
not evaluated these actions. Although not directly related to HMSA 
activities, the quantity of meat and poultry inspected and passed by 
USDA has grown, and the quantity of meat and poultry recalled has 
increased. 

USDA has oversight responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat, 
poultry, and processed eggs. For example, federal regulations prohibit 
companies from processing and selling meat from disabled cowsï¿½which 
have a higher probability of being infected with bovine spongiform 
encephalopathyï¿½without explicit USDA inspector approval. However, USDA 
is only 1 of 15 agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws 
related to food safety. This fragmentation is the key reason GAO added 
the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk Series in 2007 
and called for a governmentwide reexamination of the food safety 
system. GAO has reported on problems with this systemï¿½including 
inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use 
of resources. Going forward, as GAO has recommended, a governmentwide, 
results-oriented performance plan and a reconvened Presidentï¿½s Council 
on Food Safety could build a sustained focus on the safety of the 
nationï¿½s food supply. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-686T]. For more information, 
contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U. S. Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA) implementation of its program to ensure that 
animals destined for human consumption are handled and slaughtered 
humanely. More than 150 million cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals 
ultimately destined to provide meat for human consumption were 
slaughtered in fiscal year 2007, at some 700 federally inspected 
slaughter facilities throughout the United States. The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS), within USDA, is responsible for enforcing 
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which prohibits the 
slaughtering of animals, or the handling of animals in connection with 
slaughtering, unless it is humane. However, the recently documented 
inhumane treatment of disabled cows slaughtered at the Westland/ 
Hallmark plant in California and the entry of their meat into the 
market calls into question FSIS's enforcement of the act. In 
particular, federal regulations prohibit companies from processing and 
selling meat from disabled (nonambulatory) cows without explicit FSIS 
inspector approval. Nonambulatory cows raise particular concerns 
because they have a higher probability of being infected with bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease. 

In 2004, we reported that FSIS was not adequately recording instances 
of noncompliance with HMSA, and thus could not assure the Congress that 
it was fully enforcing the act at federally inspected slaughter 
facilities.[Footnote 1] Specifically, we found the following: 

* Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to 
determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter 
violations. Those inspection records showed that inspectors did not 
always document violations of HMSA and that when they did, the 
inspectors did not consistently document the scope and severity of each 
incident. Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and 
regulations were also inconsistent. 

* FSIS officials were not using consistent criteria to suspend plant 
operations. As a result, plants in different FSIS districts were not 
subject to comparable enforcement actions. 

* FSIS lacked detailed information on how much time its inspectors 
spent on humane handling and slaughter activities, making it difficult 
to determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. In general, FSIS 
officials believed that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary 
Medical Specialist (DVMS) in 2002 at each of the agency's field 
offices, the number of personnel devoted to humane handling and 
slaughter compliance was adequate. 

Our 2004 report did not specifically assess FSIS's effectiveness in 
enforcing the humane handling and slaughtering provisions of HMSA, such 
as those related to the Westland/Hallmark incident. 

In this context, my testimony today focuses on (1) GAO's 2004 report on 
the frequency and scope of reported HMSA violations and enforcement 
actions by USDA, (2) trends in staffing and funding for USDA food 
inspections, and (3) GAO's designation of federal oversight of food 
safety to its High-Risk Series. 

In summary, I would like to make three observations. First, FSIS has 
taken actions to address the recommendations we made in our 2004 report 
to improve its reporting of humane handling and slaughter methods at 
federally inspected facilities. These recommendations principally dealt 
with weaknesses in FSIS's internal reporting of the frequency and scope 
of HMSA violations. However, without further evaluation and public 
reporting to enhance transparency and accountability, we do not know 
the effectiveness of these actions. 

Second, although the FSIS budget has increased since 1988, staffing 
levels have declined since 1995, and some districts have experienced 
high vacancy rates among inspectors, possibly impairing enforcement of 
HMSA and food safety regulations generally. Meanwhile, the volume of 
meat and poultry inspected and passed by FSIS has grown, along with the 
number of pounds of recalled meat and poultry. Staff levels are 
expected to rise slightly in 2008 as FSIS fills vacant positions. 

Third, USDA's FSIS is only 1 of 15 agencies that collectively 
administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. This fragmentation 
is the key reason GAO added the federal oversight of food safety to its 
High-Risk Series in 2007 and called for a governmentwide reexamination 
of the food safety system.[Footnote 2] The fragmentation results in 
federal resources for food safety being directed to multiple agencies. 
For example, the majority of federal expenditures for food safety 
inspection were directed toward USDA's programs for ensuring the safety 
of meat, poultry, and egg products, even though USDA is responsible for 
regulating only about 20 percent of the food supply. 

This testimony is based on new and previously issued work. To analyze 
trends in FSIS resources, we examined personnel and funding data from 
FSIS and the Office of Management and Budget for the past 20 years and 
determined they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses. To provide 
updated information on our previously issued reports, we interviewed 
FSIS officials and gathered information on the status of our 
recommendations. We conducted our work from April 2 through April 14, 
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act in 1958 following intense 
and broad-based public concerns about cruelty and abuse of livestock in 
meat-packing plants. At that time, the Congress determined that using 
humane methods of slaughter prevented the needless suffering of 
livestock, resulted in safer and better working conditions for 
employees, and brought about improvements in products and economies of 
slaughter operations, among other benefits. However, the act was 
limited to federal government agencies, which were required to contract 
for or procure meat products only from producers and processors that 
employed humane slaughtering methods in all of their plants. In 1978, 
the Congress passed HMSA, which required that all federally inspected 
slaughter establishments adopt humane handling and slaughter methods. 

FSIS has issued regulations and directives to enforce the act. 
Important requirements of these regulations and guidance include the 
following: 

* Animals stunned before slaughter must be rapidly and effectively 
rendered insensible before they are slaughtered. Stunning is effective 
when the animal feels no pain, is rendered instantly unconscious, and 
remains unconscious until slaughtered. 

* Dragging of disabled and other animals unable to move while conscious 
is prohibited. 

* All holding pens and driveways and ramps must be designed, built, and 
maintained to prevent injury to livestock. 

* Livestock should be provided with access to water in holding pens, 
and food if held for more than 24 hours. 

* The use of electrical prods and other devices to move livestock must 
not be excessive. 

FSIS is responsible for ensuring compliance with HMSA. FSIS is also 
responsible for ensuring the safety of most meat, poultry, and 
processed egg products at federally inspected facilities. Currently, 
FSIS employs in-plant about 7,800 inspectors--that is, public health 
veterinarians, food inspectors, and consumer safety inspectors. These 
inspectors work collaboratively, and are responsible for inspecting 
animals prior to slaughter, as well as the carcasses after slaughter, 
in order to ensure the food is safe for human consumption. According to 
FSIS officials, as inspectors carry out their food safety and other 
activities, they are responsible for monitoring compliance with humane 
handling and slaughter requirements at plants that are covered by HMSA. 
According to FSIS, while HMSA requires inspectors to observe the entire 
handling and slaughter process, inspectors do not have to observe all 
animals all the time for HMSA compliance. 

When inspectors observe a violation of HMSA or its implementing 
regulations, they are required to notify plant management and document 
the violation. 

In response to HMSA noncompliance, FSIS can take a number of 
enforcement actions, which impose restrictions on a facility's ability 
to operate, including the following: 

* For less serious violations of HMSA, inspectors at a facility can 
issue a "reject tag" to quickly respond to violations that are limited 
in scope. Inspectors place these reject tags on a piece of equipment or 
an area of the plant, prohibiting use until the violation is corrected. 

* For more serious violations, the district manager can suspend 
inspection until violations are addressed. This usually results in 
suspended operations at the facility (or part of the facility) because 
without federal inspections the facility's products are prevented from 
entering interstate and foreign commerce. 

In the rare cases where a plant fails to respond to FSIS concerns about 
repeated or serious violations, the administrator of FSIS can withdraw 
inspection. This removes the grant of inspection from a facility, 
preventing its products from entering interstate and foreign commerce. 
The facility must reapply for and be awarded a grant of inspection 
before federal inspections may resume. 

FSIS Has Taken Actions Intended to Improve Its Records on Humane 
Slaughter Violations, but Public Reporting Can Enhance Transparency: 

In 2004, we identified weaknesses in FSIS's regulations and guidance 
for recording compliance with HMSA in key areas: (1) the frequency and 
scope of humane handling and slaughter violations, and (2) actions to 
enforce compliance with humane handling and slaughter provisions. FSIS 
has taken steps to improve its reporting of humane handling and 
slaughter violations. However, although the Congress has urged USDA to 
report annually on violations and trends in compliance, USDA has not 
issued such a report since March 2003. Such public reporting can 
enhance transparency. 

In 2004, we reported that incomplete and inconsistent FSIS inspection 
records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of 
humane handling and slaughter violations. Available FSIS records showed 
that during the 28 months between January 2001 and March 2003, 
inspectors wrote 553 noncompliance records to document violations of 
HMSA and the implementing regulations at 272 facilities across the 
United States. According to these inspection records, ineffective 
stunning, which does not quickly render animals insensible to pain, and 
in many cases results in a conscious animal reaching slaughter, was the 
most prevalent type of noncompliance. To a lesser extent, the records 
showed incidents of, in declining order of prevalence: poor facility 
conditions, failure to provide water to animals awaiting slaughter, 
excessive force, and excessive use of electric prods. However, in 
conducting this analysis, we found internal control problems that call 
into question the reliability of FSIS records regarding compliance with 
the act. First, because the agency had not stored its noncompliance 
records in electronic form, it could not provide us with at least 44 of 
the 553 records from January 2001 through March 2003. Second, almost 
half of the DVMSs we interviewed at the time of our review reported 
that inspectors did not always document noncompliance when they should 
have because they were unsure about regulatory requirements. Third, the 
noncompliance records did not consistently document the scope and 
severity of violations. For example, some noncompliance records 
mentioned that ineffective stunning occurred, but did not provide the 
cause of the violation or the number of animals affected. 

We also reported FSIS took inconsistent enforcement actions to address 
noncompliance with HMSA. Inspectors stationed in slaughter plants had 
not consistently issued reject tags, which temporarily halt operations 
in all or part of a plant. Several of the DVMSs we interviewed 
attributed the inconsistent enforcement actions to inspectors' 
inexperience, lack of clarity regarding their authority, or the 
misperception that certain violations were minor. We found similar 
inconsistencies at the district management level. District managers can 
decide to take the more serious enforcement action of withdrawing 
inspectors from the plant, most likely suspending a plant's operations, 
when they are notified of serious violations. However, they lacked 
clear criteria on when to do so, which can lead to inconsistent 
enforcement. We found, for example, one case in which a district 
manager did not suspend inspections after inspectors had issued 16 
noncompliance records to a slaughter facility documenting the plant's 
failure to properly stun animals. In contrast, another facility's 
failure to provide access to water and to maintain acceptable pen 
conditions led to a suspension of operations. As a result, FSIS could 
not ensure that humane slaughter requirements are consistently enforced 
across districts, a fact that undermines FSIS efforts to enforce the 
act. 

To provide more useful information and to help strengthen oversight of 
HMSA, we recommended in 2004 that the Secretary of Agriculture direct 
FSIS to (1) include in noncompliance records specific information on 
the type and cause of violations, (2) establish additional criteria for 
when districts are to take enforcement actions in cases of repetitive 
violations, and (3) require that district offices and inspectors 
clearly document the basis for enforcement actions that they take in 
response to repetitive violations, among others. In response to these 
recommendations FSIS took steps intended to strengthen its oversight of 
humane handling and slaughter methods at federally inspected 
facilities. In particular, it has issued additional guidance to its 
district offices and inspectors to assist them in determining when to 
take enforcement actions for repeated violations. The guidance 
includes, among other things: 

* categories for the types and causes of humane handling and slaughter 
violations to be reported on noncompliance records; 

* questions inspection personnel should use to assist them in 
determining when a noncompliance trend exists; and: 

* examples of noncompliance activities affecting an animal's safety or 
constituting inhumane treatment of an egregious nature that would 
warrant immediate enforcement by inspection personnel. 

Although the agency's actions were responsive to our recommendations, 
without further evaluation, we do not know the effectiveness of these 
actions. 

Finally, FSIS has not reported annually on trends in compliance with 
humane slaughter methods, as urged by the Congress, and its most recent 
data on violations were incomplete. Public reporting is the means 
through which the federal government communicates the results of its 
work to the Congress and the American people. Such reporting is in the 
public interest and promotes transparency in government operations. In 
2002, the Congress urged the Secretary of Agriculture to fully enforce 
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and report annually to the Congress 
on the number of violations and trends recorded by FSIS 
inspectors.[Footnote 3] According to FSIS officials, in response to the 
Congress and as part of its annual appropriations process, USDA has 
provided the House and Senate appropriations committees information on 
the number of suspensions as well as general information on HMSA 
activities. However, in recent years, USDA has not reported to the 
Congress on the number of violations and trends recorded by its 
inspectors. In its most recent report, in March 2003, USDA indicated to 
the Congress that during fiscal year 2002, "very few infractions were 
for actual inhumane treatment of the animals." However, we identified 
shortcomings in the data used to make this finding. At the time of our 
review, officials told us that the statement was based on a sample of 
approximately half of the noncompliance records available. In contrast, 
our analysis of all of the noncompliance records FSIS provided for 
fiscal year 2002 showed that one-fourth of the 366 noncompliance 
incidents documented by inspectors were for incidents of ineffective 
stunning which fails to meet humane standards in USDA regulations. Lack 
of complete and consistent data can make it difficult for FSIS to 
accurately assess compliance with the act, and prevents transparency in 
the reporting of violations. 

FSIS's Budget Has Increased as Staffing Has Declined: 

Unlike the budgets of other federal agencies responsible for food 
safety, the budget for FSIS has seen a marked increase since 1988. As 
shown in figure 1, the agency's budget authority increased from $392 
million in fiscal year 1988 to $930 million in fiscal year 2008, or 137 
percent. When adjusted for inflation, the increase is about 47 percent. 

Figure 1: FSIS Budget Authority, Fiscal Years 1988 through 2008: 

This figure is a combination line graph showing FSIS budget authority, 
fiscal years 1988 through 2008. The X drive represents fiscal year, and 
the Y axis represents dollars in millions. 

Fiscal year: "1988"; 
Constant dollars: 633.4; 
Nominal dollars: 392. 

Fiscal year: "1989"; 
Constant dollars: 629.8; 
Nominal dollars: 405. 

Fiscal year: "1990"; 
Constant dollars: 631.8; 
Nominal dollars: 421.3. 

Fiscal year: "1991"; 
Constant dollars: 648.8; 
Nominal dollars: 448.9. 

Fiscal year: "1992"; 
Constant dollars: 667.5; 
Nominal dollars: 473.4. 

Fiscal year: "1993"; 
Constant dollars: 680.5; 
Nominal dollars: 493.7 

Fiscal year: "1994"; 
Constant dollars: 699.5; 
Nominal dollars: 518.3. 

Fiscal year: "1995"; 
Constant dollars: 701.9; 
Nominal dollars: 531. 

Fiscal year: "1996"; 
Constant dollars: 706.8; 
Nominal dollars: 545. 

Fiscal year: "1997"; 
Constant dollars: 731.6; 
Nominal dollars: 574. 

Fiscal year: "1998"; 
Constant dollars: 741.8; 
Nominal dollars: 589. 

Fiscal year: "1999"; 
Constant dollars: 767; 
Nominal dollars: 617. 

Fiscal year: "2000"; 
Constant dollars: 790; 
Nominal dollars: 649. 

Fiscal year: "2001"; 
Constant dollars: 827.3; 
Nominal dollars: 695. 

Fiscal year: "2002"; 
Constant dollars: 852.6; 
Nominal dollars: 730. 

Fiscal year: "2003"; 
Constant dollars: 863.2; 
Nominal dollars: 754. 

Fiscal year: "2004"; 
Constant dollars: 863.6; 
Nominal dollars: 774. 

Fiscal year: "2005"; 
Constant dollars: 883.3; 
Nominal dollars: 817. 

Fiscal year: "2006"; 
Constant dollars: 868.6; 
Nominal dollars: 830. 

Fiscal year: "2007"; 
Constant dollars: 906.9; 
Nominal dollars: 890. 

Fiscal year: "2008"; 
Constant dollars: 930; 
Nominal dollars: 930. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Budget of the U.S. government data. 

[End of figure] 

The Administration's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget calls for an 
increase in FSIS's funding to $952 million. When adjusted for 
inflation, the proposed increase is about $4 million, or 0.5 percent. 

While FSIS's budget authority has significantly increased since the 
late 1980s, the number of FSIS employees has declined. As shown in 
figure 2, from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2007, the number of full-
time employees at FSIS fell from about 9,600 to about 9,200, or 4 
percent. Vacancy rates across FSIS have declined to about 7 percent, 
and for its inspector positions vacancies have declined to about 4 
percent. However, 2 of the agency's 15 districts--Boulder and Des 
Moines--reported vacancy rates among their inspector positions of about 
22 percent and 11 percent, respectively. As the figure also shows, 
staff levels are expected to rise slightly in 2008 as FSIS fills vacant 
positions. Agency officials noted the overall decline is due, in part, 
to consolidation in the meat industry, resulting in fewer facilities, 
and the introduction of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
system, which is a risk-based effort to reduce food contamination. 

Figure 2: FSIS Staff Levels, Fiscal Years 1988 through 2008: 

This figure is a line graph showing the FSIS staff levels, fiscal years 
1988 through 2008. The X graphh represents the fiscal year, and the Y 
axis represents the number of full-time employees. 

Fiscal year: "1988"; 
Number of full time employees: 9176. 

Fiscal year: "1989"; 
Number of full time employees: 9121. 

Fiscal year: "1990"; 
Number of full time employees: 9206. 

Fiscal year: "1991"; 
Number of full time employees: 9286. 

Fiscal year: "1992"; 
Number of full time employees: 9386. 

Fiscal year: "1993"; 
Number of full time employees: 9524. 

Fiscal year: "1994"; 
Number of full time employees: 9613. 

Fiscal year: "1995"; 
Number of full time employees: 9614. 

Fiscal year: "1996"; 
Number of full time employees: 9470. 

Fiscal year: "1997"; 
Number of full time employees: 9432. 

Fiscal year: "1998"; 
Number of full time employees: 9403. 

Fiscal year: "1999"; 
Number of full time employees: 9325. 

Fiscal year: "2000"; 
Number of full time employees: 9439. 

Fiscal year: "2001"; 
Number of full time employees: 9321. 

Fiscal year: "2002"; 
Number of full time employees: 9259. 

Fiscal year: "2003"; 
Number of full time employees: 9208. 

Fiscal year: "2004"; 
Number of full time employees: 9237. 

Fiscal year: "2005"; 
Number of full time employees: 9373. 

Fiscal year: "2006"; 
Number of full time employees: 9339. 

Fiscal year: "2007"; 
Number of full time employees: 9184. 

Fiscal year: "2008"; 
Number of full time employees: 9425. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Budget of the U.S. Government. 

Note: Data for 2008 are estimated. 

[End of figure] 

Furthermore, in 2004 we reported FSIS did not have data on the number 
of inspectors devoted to compliance with HMSA or on the amount of time 
that inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter requirements. 
Without such information, FSIS could not determine the appropriate 
number of inspectors for different-sized plants or the number of 
inspectors needed overall to effectively enforce the act. 

We recommended that FSIS (1) develop a mechanism for determining the 
level of resources that the agency devotes to humane handling and 
slaughter activities, (2) develop criteria for determining the 
appropriate level of inspection resources, and (3) periodically assess 
whether that level is sufficient to effectively enforce the act. In 
response to these recommendations, FSIS took steps intended to improve 
its monitoring of resources needed to ensure compliance with HMSA. 
Specifically, FSIS: 

* implemented a system that tracks inspectors' time spent verifying 
that humane handling and slaughter requirements are met, 

* developed policy that instructs FSIS managers to use data on the 
amount of time devoted to humane handling and slaughter activities to 
assist in inspection resource planning, and: 

* established performance measures and targets to compare against time 
spent on daily activities to enforce compliance with HMSA. 

Again, these actions were responsive to our recommendations, but 
without further evaluation, we do not know the effectiveness of these 
actions. 

Although not directly pertaining to FSIS's enforcement of HMSA, the 
quantity of meat and poultry inspected by the agency, as well as the 
quantity of meat and poultry recalled, identifies some of the current 
challenges the agency faces. Meat and poultry consumption in the United 
States has increased sharply. As shown in figure 3, the quantity of 
meat and poultry inspected and approved by the agency has increased 
from about 65 billion pounds in 1988 to more than 100 billion pounds in 
2007. Much of the increase is due to the expanding U.S. poultry market. 

Figure 3: Meat and Poultry Inspected and Passed by FSIS, Fiscal Years 
1988 through 2008: 

This figure is a combination bar graph of the meat and poultry 
inspected and passed by FSIS, fiscal years 1988 through 2008. The X 
axis represents the fiscal years, and the Y axis represents the pounds 
in millions. 

Fiscal year: "1988"; 
Poultry: 37; 
Meat: 28. 

Fiscal year: "1989"; 
Poultry: 35; 
Meat: 30. 

Fiscal year: "1990"; 
Poultry: 38; 
Meat: 32. 

Fiscal year: "1991"; 
Poultry: 36; 
Meat: 34. 

Fiscal year: "1992"; 
Poultry: 39; 
Meat: 36. 

Fiscal year: "1993"; 
Poultry: 41; 
Meat: 37. 

Fiscal year: "1994"; 
Poultry: 41; 
Meat: 40. 

Fiscal year: "1995"; 
Poultry: 44; 
Meat: 41. 

Fiscal year: "1996"; 
Poultry: 45; 
Meat: 44. 

Fiscal year: "1997"; 
Poultry: 41; 
Meat: 44. 

Fiscal year: "1998"; 
Poultry: 41; 
Meat: 43. 

Fiscal year: "1999"; 
Poultry: 53; 
Meat: 47. 

Fiscal year: "2000"; 
Poultry: 45; 
Meat: 48. 

Fiscal year: "2001"; 
Poultry: 47; 
Meat: 47. 

Fiscal year: "2002"; 
Poultry: 42; 
Meat: 50. 

Fiscal year: "2003"; 
Poultry: 44; 
Meat: 49. 

Fiscal year: "2004"; 
Poultry: 44; 
Meat: 53. 

Fiscal year: "2005"; 
Poultry: 46; 
Meat: 55. 

Fiscal year: "2006"; 
Poultry: 47; 
Meat: 57. 

Fiscal year: "2007"; 
Poultry: 48; 
Meat: 57. 

Fiscal year: "2008"; 
Poultry: 48; 
58. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Budget of the U.S. Government. 

Note: Data for 2008 are estimated. 

[End of figure] 

Although the number of recalls has declined in recent years, the 
quantity of meat and poultry recalled has increased sharply. Meat and 
poultry product recalls declined from 125 in 2002 to 58 in 2007. 
However, 2 of the 6 biggest meat recalls in U.S. history have occurred 
in the past 6 months. In October 2007, Topps Meat Company LLC announced 
the recall of 22 million pounds of ground beef used for frozen 
hamburgers due to E. coli contamination. At the time, the Topps recall 
was the fifth largest in U.S. history. The E. coli-contaminated meat 
sickened at least 32 people in eight states. On February 17, 2008, 
Westland/Hallmark Meat Company announced the recall of more than 143 
million pounds of beef, the largest recall in U.S. history. The 
quantity of meat and poultry recalled has increased from 5 million 
pounds in 1994, the first year for which data were readily available, 
to 145 million in just the first quarter of March 2008. 

Federal Oversight of Food Safety Is a High-Risk Area that Needs 
Governmentwide Reexamination: 

While today's hearing focuses specifically on FSIS's responsibilities 
for the oversight of food safety, it is important to note that FSIS is 
1 of 15 federal agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws 
related to food safety. This fragmentation is a key reason we 
designated federal oversight of food safety as a high-risk area. 
Primary responsibility for food safety lies with USDA--which has 
oversight responsibility for meat, poultry, and processed egg products-
-and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)--which is responsible for 
the safety of virtually all other foods. In addition, among other 
agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the 
Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections 
of seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue 
levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the Department of 
Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating agencies' food 
security activities. This federal regulatory system for food safety, 
like many other federal programs and policies, evolved piecemeal, 
typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises. 

In 2007, we added the federal oversight of food safety to our High-Risk 
Series,[Footnote 4] which is intended to raise the priority and 
visibility of government programs that are in need of broad-based 
transformation to achieve greater economy, efficiency, effectiveness, 
accountability, and sustainability. Over the past 30 years, we have 
reported on issues--for example, the need to transform the federal 
oversight framework to reduce risks to public health as well as the 
economy--that suggest that the federal oversight of food safety could 
be designated as a high-risk area. The fragmented nature of the federal 
food oversight system suggests the government could plan more 
strategically to inspect food production processes, identify and react 
more quickly to outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, and focus on 
promoting the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. 

While we have reported on problems with the federal food safety system-
-including inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and 
inefficient use of resources--most noteworthy for today's hearing is 
that federal expenditures for the oversight of food safety have not 
kept pace with the volume of foods regulated by the agencies or 
consumed by the public. We have reported that four agencies--USDA, FDA, 
EPA, and NMFS--spent a total of $1.7 billion on food safety-related 
activities in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 5] USDA and FDA were 
responsible for nearly 90 percent of those federal expenditures. 
However, the majority of federal expenditures for food safety 
inspection were directed toward USDA's programs for meat, poultry, and 
egg products even though those programs cover only about 20 percent of 
the food supply. In contrast, FDA accounted for only 24 percent of 
expenditures even though it is responsible for regulating about 80 
percent of the food supply. 

Others have called for fundamental changes to the federal food safety 
system overall. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences' National 
Institute of Medicine concluded that the system is not well equipped to 
meet emerging challenges.[Footnote 6] In response to the academy's 
report, the President established a Council on Food Safety, which 
released a Food Safety Strategic Plan in January 2001. The plan 
recognized the need for a comprehensive food safety statute and 
concluded, "the current organizational structure makes it more 
difficult to achieve future improvements in efficiency, efficacy, and 
allocation of resources based on risk." 

Taken as a whole, our work indicates that the Congress and the 
executive branch can and should create the environment needed to look 
across the activities of individual programs within specific agencies, 
including USDA, and toward the goals that the federal government is 
trying to achieve. To that end, we have recommended, among other 
things, that the Congress enact comprehensive, uniform, and risk-based 
food safety legislation and commission the National Academy of Sciences 
or a blue-ribbon panel to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative 
organizational food safety structures. We have also recommended that 
the executive branch reconvene the President's Council on Food Safety 
to facilitate interagency coordination on food safety regulation and 
programs. According to documents on the council's Web site, the current 
administration has not reconvened the council. 

These actions can begin to address the fragmentation in the federal 
oversight of food safety. Going forward, to build a sustained focus on 
the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply, the Congress and 
the executive branch can develop expectations for food safety and 
follow up with congressional oversight and strategic planning by 
agencies, including USDA. We have previously reported that a 
governmentwide performance plan that is mission based and results 
oriented would help ensure agency goals are complementary and mutually 
reinforcing. Furthermore, this plan would help decision makers balance 
trade-offs and compare performance when making resource allocations and 
restructuring decisions. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions that you or Members of the subcommittee may 
have. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further 
information about this testimony, please contact Lisa Shames, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. 
Key contributors to this testimony were Thomas Cook, Assistant 
Director; Kevin Bray; Mary Denigan-Macauley; Leslie Mahagan; Ben 
Shouse; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Tyra Thompson. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some 
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004). 

[2] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 31, 2007). 

[3] Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107- 171, 
Section 10305 116 Stat. 134, 493. 

[4] GAO-07-310. 

[5] GAO, Overseeing the U.S. Food Supply: Steps Should be Taken to 
Reduce Overlapping Inspections and Related Activities, GAO-05-549T 
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005). 

[6] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Ensuring Safe 
Food from Production to Consumption (Washington, D.C.: 1998). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 
*** End of document. ***