Remarks prepared for delivery by Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elsa A. Murano before the American Society of Plant Biologists´ Women in Plant Biology Committee meeting, July 26, 2004, Orlando, Florida.

Introduction

Good afternoon everyone. It is a wonderful being here for your annual meeting. The American Society of Plant Biologists is a wonderful organization and it is with great pleasure that I am speaking in front of this committee. As a scientist, I think it is imperative that such a committee exists with the specific goal of enhancing the status of women scientists.

Let me give you a brief overview of my career in science. It actually started right here in Florida, where I received my B.S. degree in biological sciences from Florida International University in Miami. From there I went to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia to receive my M.S. degree in anaerobic microbiology and a Ph.D. in food science and technology. Before being sworn in as Under Secretary for Food Safety, I was a tenured professor at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, GO AGGIES!

Background

As Under Secretary for Food Safety at the Department of Agriculture, I oversee the Food Safety and Inspection Service, or FSIS, which ensures the wholesomeness of meat, poultry and egg products.

To give you a little background about FSIS, the agency regulates products that represent more than one-third of all consumer spending on food. FSIS officials inspect 39 million cattle and calves, 97 million hogs, 3.5 million sheep and lambs, and eight billion poultry and fowl a year. Our officials also are responsible for inspecting 3.2 billion pounds of liquid egg products. In addition, we inspect 3.8 billion pounds of imported meat, poultry and processed egg products from 33 countries we have determined have inspection systems equivalent to our own.

Our work force consists of over 7,600 men and women who are in approximately 6,500 plants and import stations everyday. This is an enormous task, as you can imagine. I have found that the only way to achieve our mission of protecting public health is to equip our inspectors with policies that are based on science, and that way take the guesswork out of the process.

Three Challenges to Getting Our Science-Based Work Accomplished

To many of you, especially my fellow scientists, using science to ensure safe food sounds like common sense. Well, that´s because it is.

However, when I came to work in Washington, I quickly found out that translating science into policy is like conducting lab work in a non-sterile environment. There are three major challenges to overcome in order to succeed and to get the job done.

Bureaucracy

The first challenge is the multitude of hurdles that a large bureaucracy brings to getting anything accomplished. In a large organization, there are bound to be many written requirements and procedures for getting tasks done, but then we have to ask ourselves the question, “do these procedures really address the science behind what is intended for the endgame?”

For example, let´s look at the simple task of turning on the lights. Let´s say there is required written documentation of when and how to turn on the lights in this room. You can follow those procedures, plus then there will be verification procedures in place for someone else to come by to make sure that the lights are turned on correctly and at the right time to provide visibility. So you see, there is all this documentation to make sure that people can see in the room by simply turning on the light switch at the correct time. That is akin to the myriad of paperwork that bureaucracies demand, and it can be overwhelming.

But what about making sure the electrical current is running? How do we ensure that we can still get current to the room in the event of a power outage from a backup power generator? The electrical current is the real “science” behind the issue of having a well lit room. In Washington, the bureaucracy can impede flexibility and speed, creating a challenge for those of us who must constantly work to find new ways to fight foodborne hazards to protect public health.

Politics

The second challenge is politics. Now, let me make clear that I fully support our open, transparent government process, and hope that my native Cuba might also some day be able to experience the wonders of democracy. In our system, all voices have a right to be heard. And that means some voices will disagree with what we do.

However, I am a firm believer in judging the method by the results. Disagreements among various groups regarding how best to achieve improvements in public health, are a daily occurrence in Washington. Unfortunately all too often, politics enters into it and folks who should be thrilled about our accomplishments in reducing foodborne illness instead spend their time trying to find the cloud and ignore the silver lining. The key is to rely on science for policy-making, and let the critics and those who disagree with the methods we use due to their own biases judge us by our results.

Media

The third challenge is the media. In our high-speed, fast-food world, it is difficult for some to understand that successful science is not an immediate gratification. We cannot simply order the solutions as we would a combo meal. And as any one who has spent long hours conducting research will attest to, the day-to-day work of science rarely provides the type of exciting footage the media likes to air during sweeps weeks. Also, explaining the science behind our policies to the public is not easy to do, especially in a sound bite. In addition, we are all well attuned to the fact that the media tends to air bad news instead of good because it´s the “bad” that sells.

Given these three major challenges, you´re probably sitting there wondering why any scientist would ever want to get into a leadership position within the government. However, I´ll tell you that despite the challenges I face, I´m extremely thrilled to be serving the public. When I was selected for this post by President Bush, I was honored to have the rare opportunity to do something that could positively impact so many people´s lives in terms of improving public health. It is an awesome responsibility and one I take very seriously. The decisions we make every day affect people, and it is vastly different from the impact I could make on people´s lives at academia.

However, I must tell you that coming from academia gave me the tools I needed to tackle the challenges of policy-making. Science is a great basic training. It teaches us a way of thinking out methodical approaches to solving short- and long-term challenges. The scientific method I used in the lab helps me out in my government role. Borrowing the cliché, it is my own little "method to this madness."

Applying the Scientific Method to USDA Policy

As you all know the scientific method includes the following steps:

First step is to make an observation. The core problem identified is the fact that foodborne illnesses are causing approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year and costing billions of dollars in healthcare and lost productivity.

Next, one must develop a hypothesis on why this happens and how it could be addressed. My hypothesis is that if I use science as the basis for all decision- and policy-making, then positive results will follow.

When I first joined USDA almost three years ago, I established several goals, a roadmap of improvements for our food safety mission. These goals are the procedures within the scientific method.

We then developed policies based on risk assessment for specific pathogens in order to reduce their presence in meat and poultry products. Recent indicators show that our approach has worked. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in its annual report on the incidence of infections from foodborne pathogens, noted significant declines from 1996 to 2003 in illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 (42%), Salmonella (17%), Campylobacter (28%) and Yersinia (49%).

As I´ve been stating, basing our policies on science has been fundamental to this progress. But going down this road wasn´t easy, because of the three challenges that surrounded our environment. Let me give you a concrete example by telling you how we worked to address the risk of foodborne illness from Listeria monocytogenes.

Combating Listeria monocytogenes

We were faced with this challenge when we began a series of initiatives aimed at reducing this pathogen in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. This strain of Listeria survives and grows at refrigeration temperatures in many food items including dairy products and deli meats. It can be especially dangerous for certain at-risk populations including pregnant women, infants, the elderly and those battling chronic diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while the rate of listeriosis has fallen by 40 percent in the past five years, Listeria monocytogenes still accounts for almost 500 deaths each year.

First, we compiled a draft risk ranking of products, estimating the potential level of exposure of three age-based US population groups to Listeria monocytogenes in 20 food categories. We then took these data and related them to public health consequences.

While this information was a beginning, it only showed us the who, not the how, of the illnesses caused by this pathogen. A larger review was needed, one that included data concerning Listeria monocytogenes in various ready-to-eat products.

During the course of conducting this risk assessment, we discovered that a combination of product testing coupled to increased plant sanitation and pathogen interventions such as post-packaging treatments, yielded far greater benefits than any one strategy alone.

The risk assessment also demonstrated that the use of intervention steps, such as post-packaging pasteurization or the introduction of growth inhibitors, showed the most dramatic public health benefits. Importantly, it showed that testing product of the environment would result in limited risk reduction.

If we had yielded to the political pressure to do something about Listeria at the time of the Listeriosis outbreak in the fall of 2002, before the assessment was complete, then we would have never known this critical information. In addition the interim final rule the agency published last year would not have as strong or effective without such as assessment. We would never have known this important information if we had not taken the time and effort to conduct this assessment. The final regulation issued by the Agency last year took a while to finish, due to the time it took to complete the risk assessment. However, it is stronger and more effective than it would have been without such an assessment. I am convinced that due to our diligence and strong commitment to science, lives have been saved.

Reporting the Results and Sharing Lessons Learned

Due to our science-based initiatives, we have also reduced the illnesses caused by two other very important pathogens. The prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat and poultry appears to have dropped by 65% over the past six years and by 16% compared with 2002. Out of the number of regulatory samples collected and analyzed by FSIS between January 1 and October 31, 2003, 3.6 percent tested positive for Salmonella, as compared with 4.3 percent in 2002; and 10.7 percent in 1998. Most significant is the fact that illnesses due to E. coli O157:H7, a pathogen most often associated with undercooked hamburger, decreased a full 36% in only one year!

The data for these three pathogens validate and endorse our scientific approach to improving public health through safer food. I often say we have the safest food supply in the world. The results I have just reviewed directly underscore this statement.

But as I was alluding to before, none of these accomplishments were quick fixes. Logic isn´t always clear and good science is a series of building blocks, piecing together different bits until the solution is found. Nor is our work completed. We must always review and refine our measures. And finding the scientific answers is only half of the battle.

The results of sound science can be dramatic indeed. And it is for this, the rare opportunity that I mentioned earlier to improve people´s lives that we do what we do. And there is always more that can be done. Pathogens continue to evolve and thus our strategies to combat them must also progress. Louis Pasteur said "in the realm of science, luck is only granted to those who are prepared." Food safety is too important to be left to guess work or luck; we must be prepared to identify and meet challenges head on.

The Conclusion

These are only a few examples of the work we´ve undertaken to share the important information science has shown us. I think we can all agree that our final destination should be the elimination of food borne illness.

If we cannot completely eliminate it, we can certainly do all we can to minimize it to the greatest extent that science will allow. In the early part of the 20th century, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death among Americans. But as our knowledge of science and the importance of sanitation grew, and technologies such as refrigeration and pasteurization were developed, lives were saved. According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, over 14,000 patents related to food safety have been issued in the past 25 years. Currently, there are another 3,000 pending applications for food safety-related inventions. I believe that in this century, science and technology will again help to make our food supply even safer and save more lives.

We at USDA must encourage the use of safe and effective interventions, and do all we can to ensure that we facilitate the process of transferring new technologies from the bench-top to the processing plant.

Apply the Method to Your Career

Before I close today, I would like to give you a little advice when planning your future career and in achieving a leadership position. First, you need to formulate your purpose, your vision. As all good scientists should, you need to keep an open mind. Will it be a job with the private sector, helping to discover new products that better serve people around the world or with academia, working to validate or disprove current scientific assumptions? Or will you take a non-scientific route, such as working for Congress on issues such as funding for public grants or perhaps working for a future Administration, developing public policy designed to improve the lives of our citizens?

Your hypothesis needs to include the pros and cons of each path, and your predicted outcomes. The procedure step of your model should include your observations from events such as this meeting, and "experiments" such as internships and jobs you may have had.

Data gathering is an obvious factor in whatever path you are researching. In addition to obtaining information about a prospective employer, you need to do some internal data gathering as well. There may be no scientific proof for "gut instinct", but it is an important tool you have.

The results of your investigation might not be immediately apparent. And like good lab experiments, it might simply generate more questions, not the answer you were seeking. Such is life, and we can only go on the information we have and make the best possible decisions from what our research reveals.

The conclusion, a summary of your life "experiment", hopefully will not be written until much later on. You may even get to call it a memoir and have it published in something other than a journal of science!

If there is one thing I would like to pass on to you, it is to let you know that no matter how smart you are, or how many degrees you have, no one can know all of the answers all of the time. We can waste way too much of our "ATP" worrying that we haven´t taken the right path at the right time. Remember you have been trained in inquiry, and that the scientific method can be applied to all sorts of questions, not just those generated in a lab. Do your due diligence in researching your options, and then listen to your inner voice. You have the skills, the knowledge, and the opportunity. Go for it!

Closing

Thank you so much for your attention, and for your dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. I wish you all Godspeed in your studies, and in your research projects. Now, I believe we have time for a few questions..