 |
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 Dr. Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety, before the Apple Processors Association, Washington, DC, November 13, 1997.
It's a pleasure to meet with you today to discuss food safety. Over the past several years, we have seen a renewed focus on food safety for all commodities. Food safety is a priority of this Administration at the highest level, as evidenced by two food safety initiatives announced by the President this year, which I will discuss further in just a few minutes.
I appreciate your organization's interest in food safety, because USDA believes that in order to achieve significant reductions in the incidence of foodborne illness, we all have to work closely together. All of us--government, industry, and consumers--have a role in food safety, and you will see this partnership theme repeated many times.
Although reported incidence of foodborne disease from fresh produce is relatively low, it is increasing. At the same time, we are encouraging the increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. "5-a-day" is a cornerstone of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and public health advice to reduce the risk of chronic disease. Therefore, consumers must have confidence in the availability of produce that is consistently safe.
We certainly believe that industry has the primary responsibility to produce safe food. But government has also has a responsibility--and that is, to set food safety standards where appropriate and ensure that industry is meeting these standards. The extent to which mandatory standards make sense depends on a host of factors, including current knowledge regarding risk reduction, the nature of the industry, the foodborne illness risk associated with products, and the legal authority of Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies to set such standards.
Regardless of whether standards should be mandatory or voluntary, however, they should be science-based. I know that the apple industry, having gone through the Alar incident years ago, recognizes the need for science to guide public policy. We wholeheartedly agree, and that is the direction in which we are headed.
Today, I would like to review for you the various governmental food safety initiatives underway, and how they will affect your industry.
In January, the President launched his Food Safety Initiative, which addresses many important food safety concerns. The initiative includes measures to:
Improve and modernize food inspection and manufacturing procedures;
Increase research into foodborne pathogens;
Create a nationwide early-warning system for foodborne illness,
Strengthen coordination among Federal, State, and local food safety agencies, and
Improve training and education in food safety.
At the time of this announcement, the Federal agencies involved in food safety had already made significant progress in terms of establishing mandatory HACCP systems for meat, poultry, and seafood, and initiating the Sentinel Site Survey, now called FoodNet, which tracks the incidence of foodborne illness at key sites around the country. But the President's Initiative has focused even greater resources on food safety, allowing us to build on those improvements and better coordinate our efforts.
We have seen progress already.
Two new FoodNet sites--in Rochester, NY and Baltimore, MD, were added to the foodborne disease system and are now operational.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began the process of creating a national electronic network for DNA fingerprint comparison by providing states with DNA technology.
FDA, USDA, CDC, and EPA have all appointed outbreak coordinators who will act as the main contact points in any outbreak that falls within the responsibility of that Agency.
And we recently unveiled the new character "BAC," a green, slime-oozing bacteria, which will be the cornerstone of the most far-reaching and ambitious public education campaigns ever focused on safe food handling. The goal of the "Fight BAC!TM" campaign is to educate consumers on the problem of foodborne illness and motivate them to take basic sanitation and food handling steps that will greatly reduce their risk of foodborne illness.
We are now developing a budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 99 to build on the accomplishments that have begun to be realized in FY97 and that will be furthered in FY98. Our experience working together for the past year has also helped us to identify new opportunities to avoid duplication of effort and to leverage agency resources.
The President also announced on October 2 his intention to send to Congress legislation giving FDA additional authority regarding imported fruits, vegetables, and other foods. This would be similar to existing law requiring USDA to halt the importation of meat and poultry from countries whose food safety systems and standards are not on par with those of the United States.
This is largely an FDA initiative, but USDA will be involved because the President also directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to work with USDA, and in close cooperation with the agricultural community, to issue guidance on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices for fruits and vegetables.
Secretary Glickman has asked me to coordinate USDA's participation in implementing this directive and providing HHS with the support it needs. This will involve many USDA agencies. By December 31, USDA and HHS will provide a status report to the President, which includes a plan and schedule for implementation of the directive by October 1, 1998. Public meetings are scheduled for December to brief the public on the draft document and to solicit input.
One of the President's strong messages is that we should accelerate whatever food safety research is necessary to support these initiatives. We must look for new ways to make food safe, but we must also re-evaluate traditional processing procedures in light of current food safety concerns. What has worked in the past may no longer be effective, and we must be constantly vigilant to this possibility. An example of this in the meat industry was the discovery that traditional processing procedures for dry and semi-dry fermented sausages were not adequately destroying E. coli O157:H7. We have asked plants to validate their processes for these products to protect the public health.
Research and education have always been USDA priorities, but they have gained even more importance under the President's initiatives. Food safety is one of the areas USDA has identified as a priority for research and education. And clearly, the Congress supports food safety research as well, as evidenced by the research title of the Farm Bill, which is up for reauthorization. The Senate version includes a component that would provide for a new competitive grants program of $780 million over five years for research, education, and extension grants in five high priority areas. Food safety and technology is one of the five priorities identified. Unfortunately, Congress is adjourning without resolving the research title reauthorization, but we hope to see action when Congress returns.
It may be of interest to the produce industry to know that USDA is planning a major research initiative addressing fresh fruits and vegetables to support the President's produce initiative. The research project will help us to answer important questions regarding the use of manure in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables.
For instance, we need to know how effective composting the manure is in destroying pathogens. We need to know how and where pathogens present in manure compost spread, and the mechanisms for that spread. We need to know how long human pathogens will persist in the open environment. And we need to know the food safety implications of post-harvest processing techniques such as fresh-cut and modified-atmosphere packaging if human pathogens were present. USDA hopes to begin this research initiative in spring 1998.
The food safety implications of manure use on fruits and vegetables is especially important with the trend toward organic farming. We know that from a food safety perspective, composting is preferred over the use of raw manure in organic production, but we still don't know enough to provide specific advice. USDA expects to issue a proposed rule on the organic issue by the end of the year, and one area the department will be requesting comment on is the safe application of raw manure to crops grown for human consumption. We are seeking comment on whether 60 days, which is the waiting period stipulated in The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, is a sufficiently long time for bacteria to be killed off.
This research base is vitally important for developing voluntary food safety plans. Even though there are significant gaps in our knowledge about how to reduce or eliminate pathogens in an agricultural setting, I believe we must develop plans based on the information we have today, and update them as new information becomes available.
A coalition of 20 produce industry groups, led by the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, recently released a document intended to guide the produce industry on food safety. We applaud such efforts on the part of industry. We urge growers to take a proactive role in minimizing the food safety risks associated with fruits and vegetables and to encourage others involved farther along the farm-to-table chain to do the same.
The steps we have taken to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness associated with meat and poultry products is a good example of taking action based on what we know today, recognizing that adjustments will be needed in the future. We are now in the process of implementing new requirements to improve the safety of these products. In January, the largest slaughtering and processing plants will be required to implement HACCP and meet government-established performance standards for Salmonella. We have set new requirements based on the scientific information we have available today, knowing that as new information emerges, adjustments in these requirements may be needed.
In closing, we need to take a comprehensive approach to food safety. But in doing so, we will also need to tailor specific steps to the commodity, the nature of the industry, current knowledge, and a host of other factors. The full range of options, from education to voluntary standards to mandatory standards, must be explored for the various commodities and for the various points along the farm-to-table chain.
Despite the diversity of commodities and approaches, however, I believe there is common ground for a comprehensive approach. The elements are as follows:
We must base our decisions on how to proceed on sound science, and we must have data to back up our decisions.
Each of us--government, industry, and the public--must take its fair share of the responsibility for food safety.
We must form partnerships to make true food safety progress, and
The public must be kept informed and involved in the decision making process.
There are many challenges ahead, but I believe we have a good framework in place for making significant food safety improvements. I am optimistic that we can, working together, make all foods safer for the public.
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