Statement of Dr. Elsa Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety, before the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget for food safety within the Department of Agriculture (USDA). I am Dr. Elsa Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety. With me today are Dr. Merle D. Pierson, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety; Margaret Glavin, Acting Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS); and USDA’s Budget Director, Stephen Dewhurst. Other FSIS representatives here today are Ron Hicks, Acting Associate Administrator, Jeanne Axtell, Acting Deputy Administrator for the Office of Management, and members of the Budget Division staff.

Since this is my first time here, I would like to introduce myself to you. I am a native of Havana, Cuba. My family and I emigrated to the United States 40 years ago. So many of my compatriots have lost their lives in shark-infested waters, seeking the very freedom and opportunities that led to my being here today. So as a Cuban-American, I thank the United States, my adopted country, for being the beacon of liberty for the world.

I am a scientist by profession. I graduated with a B.S. in Biology from Florida International University. I developed a deep interest in the medical field and in public health, which led me to earn an M.S. degree in Anaerobic Microbiology, and a Ph.D. in Food Science from Virginia Tech. I also developed an appreciation for the field of food microbiology, and decided to dedicate my life to the study of bacteria, which although microscopic, are capable of causing so many cases of foodborne illness each year in our country, and throughout the world.

I have been a researcher and teacher in the field of food safety, both at Iowa State and Texas A&M Universities. My research efforts have led me to investigate organisms like Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella, all the bad actors that have become household words. My approach in this work has been to determine where these pathogens are found, and to investigate safe methods that can be used to control or eliminate them from farm to table.

Throughout my career as a researcher, I have become keenly aware of the importance of sound scientific studies, and how these can help provide us with the critical information we need to make decisions that will truly reduce the risk of foodborne illness. I have also observed the need for a proactive approach, one that does not react to food safety crises, but rather anticipates risks and prepares to mitigate the potential for harm. The events of September 11th are a reminder to all of us that we need to be diligent in order to prevent threats to our food supply as much as humanly possible.

Since September 11th, the question has been asked, "What is USDA now doing to ensure the safety of the nation's meat, poultry, and egg products supply?" Recent events have caused us to examine every aspect of our food safety system at USDA. After close scrutiny, I am confident that we are in a strong position due to our food safety infrastructure. We have a daily presence of inspectors in every meat, poultry, and egg products facility, strong sampling and laboratory resources, a science-based regulatory inspection system, and an import reinspection, audit, and verification program that permits free trade while ensuring that product entering the U.S. is as safe as domestic product. I would like to thank you for your support, because the full funding that FSIS received in FY 2002 enables us to fulfill our responsibility to the American people by ensuring that the U.S. food supply remains among the safest in the world.

MY VISION

It is truly an honor to have been asked by President Bush and Secretary Veneman to serve as Under Secretary for Food Safety. To have the chance to really make a difference in the food safety arena is a golden opportunity that I do not take lightly. I would like to share with you my vision for the future of food safety and inspection for meat, poultry, and egg products and how the FY 2003 budget request supports that vision.

When I began the job last fall, I indicated that I would spend some time assessing where we are and what has been accomplished before deciding where we needed to go. I have determined that we have a strong food safety infrastructure. Within FSIS alone, more than 7,600 inspection personnel verify the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products nationwide. Combined with the resources of other government agencies at the Federal, State and local levels, we have an extensive system of protection. A vital part of our infrastructure is the Pathogen Reduction (PR)/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation, which came into effect for all meat and poultry plants in 2000.

Our food safety infrastructure is designed to address both intentional and unintentional threats to the safety of our food supply. Thus, we must continue to strengthen it, and to increase its flexibility in responding to food safety threats, if we are to maintain consumer confidence in our food supply and our regulatory programs.

I have five goals I want to pursue in the coming year to ensure that we are proactive in protecting the public’s health. These goals are not listed in any particular order because they must all be pursued with equal vigor in order to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply. My five goals are to:

1. Protect meat, poultry, and egg products against intentional harm;
2. Improve upon the overall management and effectiveness of FSIS programs;
3. Enhance coordination of food safety activities within and outside of USDA;
4. Use science to guide our future policy decisions; and
5. Significantly enhance outreach and public education efforts.

Protect Against Intentional Harm

Since September 11th, we have placed increased attention on the need for coordinated efforts to ensure biosecurity. As I mentioned earlier, due to our extensive food safety systems, we have not needed to make dramatic changes to our operations to respond to possible terrorist threats. However, I want to assure you that we have taken specific steps to continue to protect the safety of our meat, poultry, and egg products, with a special emphasis on intentional contamination. Allow me to describe some of these steps, which have as their hallmark an improved coordination in the prevention, as well as response to biosecurity threats.

Within the Department, the USDA Homeland Security Council is the lead group in our effort to ensure the safety of our food supply. The Council is responsible for overall USDA Homeland Security policy, coordination of Department-wide homeland security issues, tracking USDA progress on homeland security objectives, and appointing representatives to inter-agency or external groups. The Council also ensures that information, research, and resources are shared, and activities are coordinated with other Federal agencies.

The USDA Homeland Security Council has three subcouncils that provide coordination between mission areas and agencies, as well as information to the Secretary and other key decision-makers. One of these, the Protection of the Food Supply and Agriculture Production (PFSAP) subcouncil, is charged with protection of the food supply and agricultural production. The Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and I are co-chairs of this subcouncil, which is responsible for:

• Coordination of activities within USDA mission areas in response to a terrorist threat to agricultural production;
• Coordination of activities within USDA mission areas in response to a terrorist threat to meat, poultry, and egg products;
• Border surveillance and protection to prevent introduction of plant and animal pests and diseases.

With specific regards to protection of meat, poultry, and egg products, there are three entities through which activities are carried out, both within and outside USDA. First, is the Food Biosecurity Action Team, or F-BAT. F-BAT is an internal FSIS group, which we created in response to the September 11th attacks; second is the Food Emergency Rapid Response and Evaluation Team (FERRET), which involves all of USDA and which existed prior to September 11th; and third is the Food Threat Preparedness Network (PrepNet), which includes all food safety agencies of the Federal Government, and which was created after September 11th. I would like to explain to you in more detail what each of these three entities brings in fighting bioterrorism.

Let's begin at the level of FSIS' preparedness. First, the Food Biosecurity Action Team (F-BAT) was formed to coordinate and facilitate all activities pertaining to biosecurity, countering terrorism, and emergency preparedness within the Agency. F-BAT also serves as FSIS’ voice with other government agencies, and internal and external constituents on biosecurity issues.

F-BAT is charged with 5 goals:

• Ensuring the continuation of FSIS essential functions during emergencies;
• Ensuring employee safety pertaining to terrorism, bioterrorism and catastrophic emergencies;
• Ensuring that FSIS is prepared to prevent and respond to agricultural terrorism or attacks on the food supply;
• Ensuring proper communication with FSIS employees, USDA, industry, trade associations, consumers, media, and Congress; and
• Ensuring the security of our laboratories.

F-BAT has been instrumental in several initiatives to improve food safety and security. These include:

• Assessing potential vulnerabilities along the farm-to-table continuum;
• Providing guidelines to industry on food security and increased plant security, particularly in small and very small plants;
• Strengthening FSIS coordination and cooperation with law enforcement agencies; and
• Enhancing security features at all FSIS laboratories, and increasing the capacity of its laboratories to test for additional food safety hazards and biological agents.

In conjunction with F-BAT, FSIS is integrating bio-security responsibilities into new veterinary medical specialist positions being established in each district office. These individuals will serve as points of contact in each district on biosecurity issues.

Next, I'll describe our Department-wide mechanism to ensure expeditious and effective response in the event of a food security threat -- that mechanism is called FERRET -- the Food Emergency Rapid Response and Evaluation Team.

As I mentioned before, FERRET existed before September 11th, having been established in 1998 to provide a quick and appropriate USDA response across agencies to food safety emergencies. FERRET is chaired by me, as the Under Secretary for Food Safety, and emergency response activities are coordinated by FSIS. As I said earlier, the USDA formed its Homeland Security Council in response to September 11th, with one subcouncil in charge of protecting the food supply and agricultural production. So, if a food-related biosecurity event occurs, FERRET and this subcouncil become one; however, if there is a food emergency that is not biosecurity-related, only FERRET will function.

The third pillar of our biosecurity efforts is the Food Threat Preparedness Network, also known as PrepNet. This group functions across departments to ensure food security throughout the government. PrepNet is co-chaired by the Administrator of FSIS and the Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is a strong example of our commitment to working with our sister public health agencies to take proactive measures against bioterrorist threats. Other members of PrepNet include APHIS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The focus of this group is on preventive activities to proactively protect the food supply, as well as rapid response in case of an emergency. PrepNet, which works in conjunction with Governor Ridge’s Office of Homeland Security, is reviewing each agency's statutory authorities and is conducting an assessment of needs with plans to fill the statutory gaps. PrepNet members also share scientific and laboratory assets.

Improve Overall Management and Effectiveness

Now permit me to continue with goal number two of my plans, which deals with improving the management and effectiveness of FSIS programs. Many of the efforts related to this goal started before I came on board. Two examples are the restructuring of our district offices, and improving the technical background of our workforce.

Last February, FSIS formed an internal working group to review the role and functions of the district offices. Based on the findings and recommendations from this group, FSIS will realign its field offices and personnel. The result of the realignment will be a reduction of district offices from 17 to 15, with two current offices serving as sub-district offices. Further adjustments in the district office structure may be needed as changes occur in the regulated industry.

Regarding our workforce, FSIS recognized sometime ago that it needs to ensure that field employees have the training and expertise needed to operate in a more science-based environment. As part of our efforts to ensure a strong science-based workforce, and therefore a solid infrastructure, FSIS has introduced the new Consumer Safety Officers (CSO) position. CSOs conduct on-site food safety and other consumer protection assessments in meat and poultry establishments, and make determinations about the scientific efficacy of a plant’s HACCP operating plan. This new occupation advances the Agency’s transformation to a public health regulatory agency by changing the focus of inspection personnel from being merely process observers to professionals who verify the effectiveness of risk mitigation and reduction activities employed in food production processes. FSIS has already selected and trained thirty-five CSOs. They began new assignments in December 2001. We plan to select and train, from among our existing personnel, additional CSOs during FY 2002. The next class of CSOs is expected to enter training early this summer. This is part of our effort to gradually increase the proportion of scientific and technical professionals in FSIS and make available at the frontline more personnel with scientific and technical expertise in meat and poultry facilities.

Along with the CSO, our veterinarians play a key role in ensuring that our mission is carried out. To that end, we are conducting a pilot test to explore improving the role of veterinarians in FSIS as well as implementing new strategies to recruit and retain these valuable professionals. We have established a new veterinary presence in the field with the introduction of the District Veterinary Medical Specialists (DVMS) position. The DVMS will serve as the primary contact for humane handling and slaughter issues, including verification and enforcement activities, information dissemination, training, documentation, and generation of recommendations for reports to senior management on future policies. We appreciate the Committee’s funding support for these positions in the FY 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill. These DVMS’ will make an important difference in the Agency’s continued efforts to ensure full compliance with humane handling and slaughter regulations, as well as facilitate coordination of other activities in the field. In the wake of September 11th, we will now also rely on these professionals to serve as the Agency’s first point of coordination and response to intentional threats to the food supply. Their presence in the field makes them uniquely qualified to also serve as the FSIS point of contact on matters of biosecurity for industry, the Agency’s field workforce, and food safety authorities at the Federal, State, and local level. They also work closely with FSIS’ field epidemiologists as liaisons to State and foreign public health systems.

These are important steps, but not enough. We have no intention of leaving behind over 6,000 FSIS inspectors who are so important to our mission. They, too, must be able to operate in the new, more science-based FSIS. Our inspectors need to further their understanding of HACCP and how it enhances their authority. We intend to review training procedures for inspectors and enhance HACCP training to ensure that inspectors clearly understand and carry out their responsibilities. We are also pilot testing different inspection roles under the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project, or HIMP, which are discussed later in my statement.

In order for these efforts to work, the Agency needs a strong supervisory and management infrastructure. Supervisors need to be held accountable for their decisions and they need the authority to hold their subordinates responsible for their actions. Clear performance expectations, lines of authority, and accountability for assuring compliance with regulatory requirements can forge a strong link among managers, supervisors, and employees to meet food safety objectives. I am convinced that through strong management, FSIS will be able to carry out its mission of ensuring the safest food supply in the world.

Enhance Coordination of Food Safety Activities

My third goal is that of enhancing coordination of food safety activities within and outside USDA. I have come to believe very strongly that by working together, we can best leverage our resources to ensure a safe food supply. One example of how this could be done is through the cataloguing of Federal, State and local partners' capabilities regarding identification techniques and laboratory resources, so that we can quickly determine which agency is best able to respond to a particular situation, and how to coordinate the response to that incident among all agencies.

Such strategic leveraging has already begun within USDA, through our recent partnering with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, on the subject of veterinary training. We have established joint training opportunities in foreign animal diseases, coordinated emergency preparedness, and reviewed food biosecurity from a collaborative veterinary corps perspective. Our partnership with APHIS also extends beyond training activities. We are requesting funding for FY 2003 to establish an integrated surveillance system with APHIS that would conduct more comprehensive sampling at slaughter and correlate the data with on-farm data collected in the APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). The system would provide more seamless data coverage from farm to table, and present opportunities to better understand the types of risk reduction strategies that producers and processors can employ. FSIS is also exploring the possibility of co-locating its laboratories with APHIS and the Agriculture Research Services' (ARS) laboratories.

Strategic partnering must also occur between FSIS and agencies outside of USDA. I am proud of our recent coordination efforts with FDA to combat pathogens. As you may know, FSIS and FDA have had a Memorandum of Understanding since 1999 to exchange information on an on-going basis about establishments that fall under both of our jurisdictions. As a result, we have worked together on several cases in which we were jointly able to ensure the safety of specific food products.

I believe there are other opportunities for us to work with FDA to further leverage our resources for the maximum public health benefit. In fact, we are currently working on initiatives with FDA that will be truly groundbreaking in this area. We are exploring ways to increase coordination and sharing of resources to prevent overlap and duplication in the food safety arena. We hope to have an announcement in the near future of additional joint FSIS-FDA initiatives.

I would also like to make note of my commitment to working with our international partners in ensuring a safe food supply worldwide. FSIS is actively engaged in the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, a standard setting body for food safety. Last year, we received an additional $100,000 in appropriated funds to further our food safety agenda at this international level. By working with our international partners to establish internationally recognized food safety standards, we are ensuring that the U.S. government has a voice in the dialogue.

Our international efforts also include ensuring that imported product is safe for consumption and held to the highest standards of food safety. As you may know, recent reports of poor sanitary conditions in meat plants in Mexico have raised questions concerning USDA's auditing and plant certification in Mexico. I take these allegations very seriously. For this reason and at the request of Secretary Veneman, I recently traveled to Mexico to get an assessment of the situation. During this visit, I, along with the FSIS Acting Administrator and other USDA officials, met with Dr. Javier Trujillo, Director of Food Safety for Mexico, and other Mexican government officials to measure their level of commitment to maintaining a meat inspection system that is equivalent to the United States. We also took the opportunity to visit several plants in question to see the sanitary conditions first hand. I will continue to ensure that every effort is being made in Mexico and all other eligible exporting countries to maintain the highest level of sanitary conditions and will keep you apprised of the progress.

Use Science to Guide Policy

My background as a researcher in food safety has shown me the importance of science and how it should influence regulatory policy. Thus, my fourth goal is one of injecting science into the process of rulemaking. I’m open to new solutions and new ways of doing business only if they stand on the firm foundation of science. Enhancing the scientific foundation of existing food safety policies and systems is paramount, and it is one of my highest priorities. One way to accomplish this is to seek an open dialogue with the scientific community. Towards this end, I am pleased to announce plans to hold a science symposium this spring on pathogen reduction and microbial testing. This will be an opportunity for academia, consumers, and industry, to share their expertise and comment on the future direction of these important issues.

In addition to hosting scientific symposia, scientific advisory committees and other science-based organizations can help FSIS improve its scientific decision-making. One notable example is the question of performance standards. At the direction of Congress, we have turned to both the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which are comprised of the nation's top scientists and foremost experts in the food safety discipline, in order to determine the best course of action on this issue. Performance standards are an important verification tool for HACCP. The work of the Advisory Committee and the NAS is more than just an academic exercise. Their expert opinion will go a long way towards helping us determine how to select the right standards, and whether the standards have an effect on public health.

Performance standards serve as a measure of the success of food safety programs. However, it is not enough to set just any performance standard -- for the wrong standard can mislead us into believing that systems designed to control hazards are working when maybe they are not. Thus, we must set performance standards that are reliable, and that are accurate in terms of reflecting when HACCP is not working and control of hazards has been lost.

The issue of performance standards was most recently showcased in the Supreme Beef case. This case has confused many into thinking that FSIS can no longer shut down meat and poultry plants. The fact of the matter is that USDA has the authority to shut down plants for sanitation or other food safety reasons, just as it always has. However, since the Supreme Beef decision, FSIS can no longer rely solely on Salmonella data to shut down plants. I must emphasize that Salmonella testing in grinding operations has not stopped. The difference is that now we are using the performance standard data in conjunction with other measures, to verify that the establishment's HACCP plan and Sanitary Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) are working. As you know, our inspectors are charged with such verification activities. Thus, record reviews, monitoring of plant personnel, as well as microbial sampling are the tools they use to determine whether HACCP and SSOPs are working.

In addition to continuing our use of HACCP to control foodborne hazards, we are piloting novel ideas such as HIMP, to address the on-line slaughter process. I like to think of HIMP as a total food safety and process control system. As you know, under HIMP, volunteer plants take a more active role in the carcass sorting process, while our inspectors concentrate on more intense inspection and verification activities. The true value of this pilot project is that it is demonstrating how real-time data gathering can help plants maintain control over product, and how increasing the time that inspectors can spend in verification activities improves their ability to detect deviations. HIMP is still in its infancy, and FSIS is continuing to evaluate it and improve it. FSIS has received numerous comments through public meetings and Federal Register notices about the project, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) has released its own review of HIMP. We welcome all of these comments and are always willing to consider changes that will result in improvements and enhancements in food safety.

In fact, we plan to have all of the data collected thus far on the HIMP project reviewed by a scientific institution, in order to ensure that any conclusions we draw are sound and supported by science. Later this year, it is our plan to publish a Federal Register notice on the HIMP program for young chickens, to propose several improvements. We encourage all interested parties to submit their ideas to FSIS for consideration. It is important to remember that HIMP is a pilot project, and we are constantly improving it. It is not yet ready to be implemented nation-wide. When it is, we will communicate this in a transparent and open manner, and it will only take place when the data shows that HIMP represents an improvement over the traditional inspection system.

Our laboratories also play a significant role in our efforts to use science to improve FSIS' effectiveness. They are key to ensuring that we have the science to base our policy on, and to take enforcement action when necessary. For the last three years, FSIS has been working to gain accreditation for its laboratories under International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 17025. This standard is internationally recognized as a comprehensive and rigorous standard for food testing laboratories. Earlier this year, our Microbial Outbreaks and Special Projects Branch laboratory in Athens, Georgia was accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, the accrediting body in the United States recognized by ISO. The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation has audited our three regulatory laboratories. FSIS is pleased to announce that its Athens, Georgia laboratory was accredited in February and its St. Louis, Missouri, and Alameda, California, laboratories were accredited earlier this month.

Another important way to utilize science as the foundation for decision-making is to use the tool of risk assessment. Simply stated, risk assessment is the process by which risks to the food supply, such as bacteria, are identified, and their probability of causing harm characterized. Mathematical models are developed with these data, and used in order to determine whether changing certain practices will reduce or increase the risk to consumers. Risk assessment is an important part of policy making, because it helps us make the best decisions based on science.

An example is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Risk Assessment that was recently completed by Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis. The purpose was to evaluate the ability of U.S. measures to prevent the spread of BSE to animals and humans, if it were to arise in this country. The risk assessment provided valuable data showing that we are in a strong position to prevent the entry of BSE into the U.S. As the Harvard University risk assessors put it “the U.S. is highly resistant to BSE.”

Filling data gaps needed for risk assessments is a priority, because a risk assessment model is only as robust as the data used to develop it. In instances where we don’t have the needed data, we must work with researchers to fill the gaps. As you may know, FSIS meets with ARS each year to discuss our research agenda. The work that both FSIS and ARS do to prioritize research needs and carry out that research is very important to our policy making efforts. In the future, I plan to explore additional partnerships -- such as with academia -- to fill data gaps.

Enhance Outreach and Public Education Efforts

My fifth goal for the coming year is to enhance our outreach and public education efforts. I’m pursuing an aggressive education and communication program to ensure that consumers have confidence in our food safety system. This program extends beyond the traditional outreach effort FSIS has engaged in -- educating consumers about safe handling practices and educating industry on the Agency's regulatory requirements. My public education and outreach agenda expands the definition of the public to the broadest sense by including consumers, industry, FSIS employees, our public health sister agencies, State and local health departments, and foreign food safety officials.

While I recognize that FSIS excels at developing materials to educate the public on food safety, the distribution of the materials is very costly. It is my goal to work with our partners to find a cost-effective and shared means of ensuring that these important food safety messages reach their targeted audiences.

One example of our joint efforts to educate the public is our upcoming food safety education conference. The conference will be sponsored by USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in cooperation with the Partnership for Food Safety Education. We’re planning the conference for September to provide an opportunity for food safety education and communication leaders from across the country to present and share projects, assess current trends, and plan for the future.

Another way we’re working towards this goal is through a number of cooperative agreements to foster improved education and understanding of the risks associated with the handling of meat, poultry and egg products by retail stores and food service facilities. Last year, FSIS entered into 18 cooperative agreements with State retail food safety task forces, municipalities, and colleges and universities that work with the underserved or economically disadvantaged communities. And this year, we are working to fulfill those agreements as well as expand the number of agreements we have to reach even more individuals.

In addition, FSIS has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) to provide train-the-trainer educational programs nationwide to State and local sanitarians who inspect these establishments, as well as small retail store and food service facility owners and managers.

A seamless communication network involving all who play a role in ensuring the safety of the food supply -- from the regulators down to the consumers -- is essential to our mission. Coordinated efforts and a strong public education campaign will provide the framework for this communication network.

Consumers look to the government for guidance regarding food safety. I am seeking an aggressive education and risk communications program coordinated with HHS to ensure that our efforts are recognized, and that consumers have confidence in our system.

Having reviewed the overall mission and organization of the Agency, I would like to discuss some of the operational changes underway in FSIS to support the President’s Management Agenda.

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

As you are aware, President Bush has made improving government performance a priority for this Administration. The need for reform is not news. Overlapping missions and competing agendas grow up alongside one another, wasting money and baffling the public. This Administration believes that government not only needs to reform its operations -- how it goes about its business, and how it treats the people it serves; it also must rethink its purpose -- how it defines what its business is and what services it should provide.

President Bush has called for a government that is active but limited -- which focuses on priorities and does them well. And the President’s Management Agenda focuses on improving Federal management and delivering results that matter to the American people. As I pursue the five goals I have identified in my vision for USDA’s Food Safety mission area, I will be assuring that the intent of the President’s Management Agenda is fully realized.

FSIS has already taken significant steps in improving the management and effectiveness of its programs and operations. For example, FSIS has been engaged in on-going efforts to flatten its organizational structure and increase the number of employees involved with program delivery since the mid-1990’s. This earlier effort was intended to provide the organizational structure to support the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP regulation and assure re-direction of resources to the front-line activities of the Agency. Today, FSIS has turned its attention towards transitioning its workforce. The goal is to have a front-line inspection workforce that is equipped with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to operate in a public health regulatory environment. Creating this transformation requires the introduction of changes in the workforce composition, changes in the education and training of inspection personnel, and changes in the performance expectations for managers and employees at all levels.

A significant percentage of FSIS resources (92%) are involved directly and indirectly in the food safety inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products establishments. These functions can be enhanced through a variety of partnership activities with Federal, State, and local governments, the regulated industry, and consumers to meet our mission goals. Using new budget authority made available through the Homeland Security Supplemental appropriation, FSIS is exploring opportunities with other Federal agencies to leverage resources to enhance the security of the food supply. FSIS is developing closer ties, through cooperative agreements, with CDC, FDA, and U. S. Customs Service, and State and Federal law enforcement agencies, on threat recognition and interdiction activities associated with acts of bioterrorism involving the food supply. There are also significant roles for academia and the private sector to accomplish the vital work of homeland security. Private sector resources in academic and the commercial sector can play vital roles in training and education, in laboratory studies, and in information technology.

FSIS also plans to continue its work with those States conducting State inspection programs. Presently, roughly 40 percent of meat, poultry, and egg products inspection is carried out under State-operated inspection programs. USDA provides grants to the States, which then administer inspection programs that must be certified as “equal to” the Federal program. Currently, 27 States participate with FSIS as “equal to” partners. Maine is seeking to establish its own State program and is expected to be certified as early as this summer.

Accurate and timely financial information is key to achieving the highest measure of accountability and the best operating performance among Federal programs. The Food Safety mission area is committed to ensuring that Federal financial systems produce accurate and timely information to support the operating, budget, and policy decisions for public health and food safety regulation.

For its part, FSIS has been one of the lead agencies within USDA in converting to a new accounting system designed to meet the goals of improved financial performance. In FY 2002, FSIS is continuing to improve its financial performance by implementing new business processes within the district offices and by establishing new resource management performance expectations for field managers.

The President’s Management Agenda champions citizen-centered e-government as a primary means of improving the Federal government’s value to the citizen. Under the leadership of USDA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer, FSIS has been working with other USDA agencies to identify specific strategic and enabling e-government initiatives. These “Smart Choices,” as they are known, will form the core of the USDA e-government Strategic Plan. Working towards an electronic government is essential to my vision for an expanded outreach and education effort. Improved access to food safety information and timely data sharing is key to my vision as well.

As part of the USDA e-government Strategic Plan, FSIS has the lead in implementing the proposed Food Safety and Security Tools initiative. This initiative promotes interdepartmental collaboration, real-time data collection, and tracking and retrieval of port- and plant-specific data regarding food and livestock. Specifically, its focus is to:

• Share information among agencies more rapidly and effectively;
• Equip field inspectors with upgraded wireless and telephone service to enable them to enter and receive data and to communicate with each other and with management in a wider range of work settings; and
• Enhance communication in times of crisis to ensure that essential food safety-related coordination and communication occurs.

As you can see, my vision for the future of food safety and the inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products is expansive. FSIS' efforts to realize this vision and at the same time, to meet the goals of the President's Management Agenda will not be easy, but we recognize the reward if we are able to do so -- the safest food supply possible. At this time, I would like to focus on the food safety budget request for FY 2003 and show you how our funding request relates to achieving this goal.

FY 2003 BUDGET REQUEST

The FSIS budget request for FY 2003 supports the Agency’s basic mission of providing continuous food safety inspection in each meat, poultry, and egg products establishment in the country. The increase over the FY 2002 appropriation ensures a level of funding necessary to cover increased salary and benefit costs, thus assuming continued support for an in-plant inspection workforce of 7,600 employees. The budget request provides funding for a much-needed overhaul of the Agency’s data sharing and information management capabilities. The budget request anticipates no change in the Agency’s current overtime and user fee structure in FY 2003. FSIS will, however, review and propose changes to overtime fees and propose an annual licensing fee. Both of these would take effect in FY 2004.

In FY 2003, FSIS is requesting $803.6 million, a net increase in appropriated funds of $28 million. Of this proposed increase, $10.8 million is for pay and benefit increases. FSIS employee salaries, benefits, and inspector travel between plants take up nearly 90 percent of the FSIS budget. This increase also includes $1.2 million for the Grants-to-States program, primarily for increased pay costs at the State level. It is imperative that States are fully funded for their share of the cooperative programs to permit continued coordination between Federal and State authorities on inspection activities and emerging food safety threats. If not fully funded, Federal and State pay raises, benefits, and increases in health insurance and retirement benefits place a significant burden on our ability to adequately staff inspection activities in meat, poultry, and egg products establishments.

Earlier, I mentioned the need to overhaul FSIS’ data sharing and information management capabilities. FSIS’ FY 2003 budget includes a request of $14.5 million to implement the FSIS Automated Corporate Technology Suite (FACTS). FACTS is an initiative to replace FSIS’ existing disjointed information systems, with a system that has data-sharing capabilities, making program data available at all levels of the organization. All projects managed within FACTS will be interrelated through the single database, which will provide a central point of access, decreasing data redundancy and inaccuracy. A primary emphasis of this initiative will be to provide timely, up-to-the-minute data on in-plant inspection and performance. This will dramatically improve the ability of our inspectors and other professionals to make decisions quickly, and will allow FSIS to focus its resources on areas of greatest risk. The data sharing attributes of FACTS will also improve the coordination of risk management efforts both within USDA and between Federal, State, and local food safety authorities. Thus, acquisition and implementation of FACTS is key, and I strongly believe that the Agency cannot afford not to have this system if it is to do a top-notch job of protecting the public’s health. Certainly, efficiency will be increased, since by increasing the on-line access to information, FACTS will help reduce paperwork and administrative costs and expedite the handling of information requests. FACTS should be viewed in conjunction with our Field Automation and Information Management initiative (FAIM). While FAIM provides the tools for inspector communications, training, and data collection and analysis in the field, FACTS provides the software, servers, and telecommunications in the office. From that foundation, FACTS will develop systems that will support program experts in headquarters, while integrating data collection from (and data dissemination to) the inspection workforce.

FSIS’ FY 2003 budget also includes a $1.5 million request to expand risk prevention and management efforts in small and very small meat, poultry, and egg establishments. Concerns with food safety have caused major changes in food production, processing, and marketing in recent years. The advent of HACCP controls in inspected meat and poultry establishments and increasingly stringent standards by leading retail customers and foreign importers are all helping to drive these changes. Large firms are adapting, and often leading the way. Small and very small firms cannot adapt as readily because they frequently lack the resources to implement cost-effective practices that will better protect public health. To address this, FSIS will develop and provide information and outreach to small and very small processors to help them improve their HACCP systems. Working cooperatively with other food safety agencies at the State and international level, as well as academia, industry, consumer groups, and other relevant stakeholders, FSIS proposes to establish a data sharing system to distribute food safety information to small meat, poultry, and egg producers and processors.

Another new initiative included in the FY 2003 budget request is $1.2 million to conduct targeted epidemiological surveys at slaughter establishments. These surveys represent the data collection part of an effort to improve the overall quality and availability of data now found in disparate animal health databases, such as the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) and the National Anti-Microbial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). The goal is also to develop a unified animal-based public health surveillance system.

As part of this effort, raw product samples will be taken at meat and poultry slaughter operations and analyzed for the presence of lesions, and drug or chemical residues. Data from the samples will be analyzed for possible links to emerging diseases, priority pathogens, or other significant threats to public health. This information will allow the Agency to better assist producers and processors in the prevention of pathogens and other food safety hazards. It will also enable FSIS to refine its risk-based inspection strategies in collaboration with other Federal and State officials who have regulatory authority for farm-to-table food safety. FSIS will work with APHIS, FDA, CDC, and the States to prioritize the data collection needs associated with the survey program.

CLOSING

At this point, I would like to reiterate my five goals:

1. Protect meat, poultry, and egg products against intentional harm;
2. Improve upon the overall management and effectiveness of FSIS programs;
3. Enhance coordination of food safety activities within and outside of USDA;
4. Use science to guide our future policy decisions; and
5. Significantly enhance outreach and public education efforts.

I am committed to realizing these goals and in doing so, strengthening the safety of our meat, poultry, and egg products supply. This concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on behalf of USDA's Office of Food Safety. I welcome your questions.