 |
Food Safety and Inspection
Service United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250-3700 |
|
Food Safety and Inspection
Service United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250-3700 |
Remarks prepared for delivery by Thomas J. Billy, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, before the Association of Food and Drug Officials, June 9, 1997, Minneapolis, MN.
It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon to present the USDA keynote address. The theme of your conference, "The Challenges Continue," certainly is an appropriate one. I believe that we have made good progress on a number of food safety issues, but challenges will continue to face us because we must be vigilant and responsive to emerging public health concerns.
No matter what our food safety programs look like, or which government agency carries them out, one thing is constant. We will always have a need for good cooperation between Federal, State and local governments to make those programs work. In this atmosphere of constant debate and change, and tightening budgets, the importance of Federal-State cooperation is a principle on which we must depend, and one we must work hard to uphold.
I believe there is much evidence that the Federal agencies responsible for food safety understand the importance of working in concert with State and local governments. The President's Food Safety Initiative, for instance, was a joint effort of three Federal agencies--USDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency--working with the States, consumers, producers, industry, universities, and the public, to identify additional ways to ensure that our food supply is the safest in the world. And many of the strategies contained in the final report revolve around Federal-State cooperation. I will discuss the substance of this initiative in greater detail in a few moments.
Another example of the Federal government's commitment to working with the States is the FoodNet active foodborne disease surveillance program. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USDA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and now seven State and local departments of health are working together to improve the data currently available on the incidence of illness caused by foodborne microbial pathogens. This program exemplifies the type of cooperation that is possible, and necessary, among Federal, State, and local government agencies to address important public health issues.
I would now like to discuss the status of our food safety initiatives, with a particular focus on how we are working, and plan to work, with the States.
Let me begin by discussing the President's Food Safety Initiative in more detail. In his January 25 radio address, President Clinton announced he would request $43.2 million in his 1998 budget to fund a nationwide early-warning system for foodborne illness, increase inspections, and expand food-safety research, training and education. The President also directed USDA, HHS and EPA to consult with all interested parties to identify and report on specific steps to improve the safety of the food supply. Two public meetings were held to solicit public input; state public health officials were among those participating.
The final report, released on May 12, represents the results of that interactive process. It outlines steps USDA, HHS, and EPA will take this year to reduce foodborne illness, and it spells out in greater detail how agencies will use the $43.2 million in new funds requested for fiscal year 1998.
The initiative addresses six major areas, and I will highlight those initiatives that have a particular significance with respect to Federal-State cooperation.
First, the Administration will build a new national early-warning system to help detect and respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness earlier, and to give us the data we need to identify controls to prevent future outbreaks. With fiscal year 1998 funds, we will expand from seven to eight the number of FoodNet active surveillance sentinel sites. Existing sites are in Oregon, Northern California, Minnesota, Connecticut, Georgia, New York, and Maryland, with an eighth site to be identified. All FoodNet sites and other state health departments will be equipped with state-of-the-art technology, including DNA fingerprinting, and the States will be linked together to allow the rapid sharing of information and to quickly determine whether sporadic illnesses are actually outbreaks with a common source.
We will also improve our responses to foodborne outbreaks by establishing a Federal/State Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordinating Group to improve the approach to interstate outbreaks of foodborne illness.
Second, the President's initiative improves risk-assessment capabilities by establishing an interagency consortium to coordinate and guide overarching Federal risk-assessment research related to food safety. It also provides funds to develop better data and modeling techniques. These techniques will help scientists estimate, for example, how many bacteria are likely to be present on a food at the point that it is eaten, given an initial level of bacteria on that food as it enters the food production chain. This information will help all of us, at all levels of government, better focus our limited resources on areas where they will have the greatest impact on food safety risks.
Third, the Food Safety Initiative includes funds to develop new research methods to detect the presence of pathogens in food, enhance our understanding of how pathogens become resistant to food-preservation techniques and antibiotics, and develop new technologies for the prevention and control of pathogens.
Fourth, the agencies responsible for food safety will improve inspections and compliance, including greater use of HACCP. FDA will add seafood inspectors to implement new seafood HACCP regulations, propose appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory options for the manufacture of fruit and vegetable juice products, and evaluate whether to propose HACCP for other food commodities such as fruits and vegetables. FSIS and FDA will jointly publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, through which we will seek ways to reduce the risk of human illness from Salmonella enteriditis in shell eggs, and FSIS will propose appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory options, including HACCP, for egg products.
New Federal-state partnerships focused on coordinating inspection coverage are an important component of the inspection initiative. While FSIS already works closely with the States to coordinate meat and poultry inspection coverage, we will build on this tradition in the retail food safety area.
Fifth, the President's initiative furthers food safety education by establishing a public-private partnership to develop and encourage dissemination of standard food safety messages. Our goal is to disseminate effective, consistent, and accurate food safety messages to consumers.
USDA, FDA, CDC and the Department of Education have been working with the food industry, consumer groups, and the States and will launch a food safety public awareness and education campaign in September. We appreciate AFDO's involvement in the initiative and look forward to working with you on the campaign.
Sixth, we are initiating a long-range strategic planning effort to tackle some of the difficult public health, resource, and management questions facing Federal food safety agencies. We are committed to continuing our meetings with all stakeholders as we develop a strategic plan for improving the food safety system.
The President's Food Safety Initiative builds on previous steps to improve food safety, and HACCP is a good example of an area where we have already made progress. FSIS is now gearing up to implement HACCP in all meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants. Implementation will begin on January 26, 1998, and will be completed by January 25, 2000.
As you know, our HACCP reforms cover all plants, regardless of whether they are federally-inspected or state-inspected. But we are implementing HACCP in phases, with small plants having the most time to put their HACCP plans in place. We recognize that many of the State-inspected plants are very small and may not have the same resources that large plants have. We are working closely with our State counterparts and the small plants themselves to provide the guidance and support that will enable all plants to implement HACCP successfully.
We recently announced the availability of 13 generic HACCP models to serve as guides in developing plant-specific HACCP plans at the lowest possible cost. The models are not blueprints, but road maps for developing HACCP plans.
We have also made available two publications--the "Guidebook for Preparation of HACCP Plans" and the "Meat and Poultry Products Hazards and Control Guide," which have been revised and are being reissued for public comment along with the HACCP model plans.
We also are inviting plants to work with us on demonstration Projects to show how small and very small plants can implement HACCP. Each project will involve different aspects of a HACCP program, such as training and hazard analysis.
Enforcement is another area where we intend to strengthen our partnerships with States. We have traditionally worked closely with State and local law enforcement agencies to refer information about possible violations and have often assisted them in documenting and prosecuting cases. These contacts have been both efficient, in making the best use of Federal and State investigatory resources, and effective, in bringing cases to the most appropriate venue. In the future, we envision working with AFDO and other organizations to coordinate the monitoring of compliance in the food distribution chain and to identify the best ways for FSIS to work closely with States in developing and prosecuting cases.
As you know, we have broadened our food safety strategy to cover the entire farm-to-table continuum. Federal-State cooperation at points outside of federally-inspected plants is critically important because the States are involved in all facets of animal and food production. We believe it is our role to work with other Federal agencies and State and local governments to ensure that appropriate and feasible measures are taken at each step in the food production process where hazards can enter and where procedures and technologies exist or can be developed to prevent the hazard or reduce the likelihood it will occur. Our involvement does not mean we necessarily believe that Federal regulatory measures are needed. We intend to consider the full range of options, in cooperation with the States, including non-regulatory measures such as voluntary programs and education.
The animal production area is an example of where we do not envision the type of direct regulatory role that we have at federally inspected establishments. But we believe that HACCP principles can be used to develop voluntary national animal health programs that focus on chemical residues and pathogen reduction.
We are working closely with State veterinarians because they are involved in both animal health and food safety issues and have good working relationships with producers in their States. One reason we believe a voluntary approach will work is because we see the adoption of HACCP and food safety performance standards within slaughtering and processing plants as having a ripple effect on the animal production industry. As plants are required to meet the various measures of performance contained in the final rule and begin to implement HACCP plans that cover microbial, as well as chemical, contamination, we can expect that plants will begin to expect more information about animals coming into the plant.
With regard to the transportation and storage of meat and poultry products after they leave the FSIS-inspected plant, we believe the Federal government has a responsibility to set standards regarding such important matters as temperature control and sanitation, and we are working with FDA on this issue. In the future, we envision redeploying some of our inspection resources to assist in ensuring that such standards are met.
At the retail level, we will continue working through existing channels to meet our food safety goals. We recognize that the primary responsibility for overseeing food safety at the retail level resides properly with State and local governments.
We fully support the Food Code process and the role of the Conference for Food Protection in developing the best model code possible for State adoption. In addition to working through the Food Code, we also want to provide assistance to State and local regulatory agencies, through training and other means. Working with AFDO, we recently began a series of training sessions for State and local food inspection agencies on the potential health risks associated with meat and poultry products processed at the retail level and in food service operations. This is a good example of the type of assistance we want to provide.
Egg safety is another issue we are actively working on, and this is the first time we have looked at a commodity from a farm-to-table approach. Because of the complexity of the issues surrounding the safety of eggs and egg products, we are undertaking a comprehensive strategy to address these issues. In September 1996, FSIS and FDA initiated a quantitative risk assessment for shell eggs and egg products, from farm to table. The project is being conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of scientists from USDA, FDA, CDC, and academia. Its purpose is to provide a more definitive understanding of the risks of foodborne disease from these products, and it will assist us in evaluating ways that these risks might be reduced. We anticipate completion of the risk assessment in late summer 1997.
USDA is working closely with FDA on the safety of eggs and egg products to share expertise and because FDA has primary regulatory jurisdiction over the safety of shell eggs. As I mentioned, we will issue a joint Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and look forward to receiving a lot of input from State and local authorities in order to develop a comprehensive, rational, and cost-effective strategy that ensures coordination of all government efforts to most effectively address the public health risk related to shell eggs and egg products.
We have received considerable input regarding implementing the 1991 legislative requirement for an ambient temperature of 45 degrees F. during the transportation of shell eggs. As we have reported to Congress, we believe this is a flawed, unenforceable, public health approach, with undue economic impact on small operators. However, there is no reason why industry shouldn't meet this target whenever possible, as an interim step to improve shell egg safety.
As we further develop our farm-to-table food safety strategy, our new district managers will be key contacts for you. As you may know, we are currently undergoing a reorganization to make the best possible use of our resources so that we can meet the food safety and consumer protection challenges of the future. As part of this reorganization, we have established 18 districts to replace the current regional and area office structure. We intend to broaden the focus of our new district managers. They will be charged with working with the States on issues all along the farm-to-table continuum, not just in plants.
Finally, interstate shipment of state-inspected products is another important Federal-State issue that has generated much discussion. A number of State Departments of Agriculture operating their own meat and poultry inspection programs have advocated amendments in Federal laws to permit State-inspected meat and poultry products to be distributed in interstate commerce.
We believe it is essential to maintain, strengthen, and hopefully expand the State-administered meat and poultry programs, and understand the concern of State officials that current Federal laws can potentially threaten the viability of State plants. Therefore, we have scheduled two public meetings to receive public comments on how the Agency can enhance its support of, and assist in improving, State inspection programs under its current authorities. We are also seeking comment on whether, and if so how, the FMIA and PPIA should be amended to permit distribution of State-inspected meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The first meeting will be held on June 16 and 17 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The second meeting will be held on July 22 in Washington, DC.
In a July 1996 Report to Congress on interstate shipment, which was required by the 1996 Farm Bill, we recommended that certain conditions be met before State-inspected establishments be authorized to ship products in interstate commerce. First, States should implement our Pathogen Reduction and HACCP final rule. Second, the FSIS resources would need to be adequate to accommodate any additional oversight required to substantiate "at least equal to" status. Third, legislation should clarify that the Secretary of Agriculture retains ultimate authority over products prepared for interstate commerce. And fourth, additional issues, most dealing with potential conflicts between Federal and State laws, would have to be resolved.
It is clear that there are a number of issues that need to be considered, and I urge you to participate in the upcoming public meetings. The Federal Register notice announcing the public meetings can provide you with more detail on some of the specific issues we are seeking input on.
In closing, in this time of tight budgets, there is no room for duplication of efforts or inefficient use of scarce resources. Collectively, we have an important job to do, and we can do it better by pooling our resources, sharing expertise, and respecting each other's role in these important food safety issues.
The President's Food Safety Initiative is providing the perfect opportunity for us to explore how we can further improve Federal-State cooperation. I look forward to working with State and local officials on the many food safety issues facing us now and those on the horizon.
For Further Information Contact:
FSIS Food Safety Education and Communications Staff
Public Outreach and Communications
Phone: (202) 720-9352
Fax: (202) 720-9063
1997 Speeches | Current Speeches | FSIS Home Page | USDA Home Page