 |
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 National Association of State Meat and Food Inspection Directors, October 21, 1997, Louisville, Kentucky.
It's a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss current issues and future goals for FSIS cooperation with State meat and poultry inspection programs. This is an extremely important, and timely, topic because we are in the process of developing our future strategy.
Let me say from the outset that USDA believes it is essential to maintain, strengthen, and hopefully expand the State-administered meat and poultry programs. These programs are an integral part of the national regulatory system for ensuring the safety of the Nation's meat and poultry supply.
Describing the State programs as part of the national system is an extremely important concept, because we cannot look at the Federal and State programs as separate entities. On the contrary, they must be considered as parts of a whole, and any initiatives we undertake must be carried out with that perspective in mind.
I believe our commitment to that concept is clear with HACCP implementation. We have worked closely with the States throughout the rulemaking and implementation process as a means of ensuring that the provisions in the HACCP rule are appropriate for State, as well as Federal, plants.
We recognize that virtually all State plants are very small, and that they need extra help in meeting the requirements of the final rule. The longer implementation time for HACCP in "small" and "very small" plants is one way we have addressed this need. In addition, we have a number of ongoing activities to assist small plants. We have made available 13 new generic HACCP models to serve as blueprints for plants that need them. We have made available two new publications to assist plants as they implement HACCP--the Guidebook for the Preparation of HACCP Plans, and the Meat and Poultry Hazards and Control Guide. We also are conducting HACCP demonstration projects for "small" and "very small" plants to demonstrate how these plants can meet the HACCP requirement. I'm pleased to report that more than 400 plants have volunteered.
We will soon begin training our inspectors on HACCP, Salmonella performance standards and testing, plus testing for generic E. coli. Inspectors assigned to large plants will be trained first to meet the Jan. 27, 1998, deadline for implementation. Talmadge-Aiken plants are being incorporated into this training schedule.
We will help State plants with training needs as well. Some State plants must implement HACCP in 1999, and their inspectors will need to be trained in 1998. We intend to schedule training for State training facilitators so they can in turn instruct their own inspectors. We are interested in gathering information from States as to how many plants fit the "small" and "very small" category so we can plan ahead.
I hope that our focus on "small" and "very small" plants during HACCP implementation illustrates our commitment to strengthening and maintaining State, as well as Federal, plants. But I believe this is just a first step, and that we have much more to do to make the Federal and State programs work together in a more seamless fashion.
One important step in this process is to acknowledge that the Federal and State governments have distinct roles when it comes to food safety. We believe there are certain things that the Federal government should do, and certain things that States programs should do, and we must proceed with these distinctions in mind.
For instance, the Federal government, in my view, should take the lead, with academia, in the identification of food hazards through risk assessment. It should be responsible for establishing food safety standards that can then be applied to both the Federal and State programs. The Federal government should take the lead in encouraging national and international uniformity in food safety standards in order to maintain consumer confidence in the safety of food, regardless of whether it was produced under a State, Federal, or foreign inspection program.
The States, too, have significant roles. We have long recognized that the States, along with FDA, have the ultimate authority over the retail food sector. This is an increasingly important area as we find the distinction between retail and inspected establishments blurring, with many retail operations now carrying out the same processing operations. We recognize the States' important food safety role during the distribution of products as well. And we also recognize the State's primary role in animal production food safety. You already have networks in place to address these segments of the farm-to-table chain, and we believe it is your responsibility to take the lead in encouraging needed food safety improvements. The State programs also should be the primary link with small plants having a local market, an important responsibility considering the large number of such operations nationwide. Many small plants have a close and productive working relationship with their State inspection programs, and we believe those relationships should be maintained.
All of us have a common interest in farm-to-table issues, even those over which we have no regulatory authority. I believe if we will work in concert with each other, and with other government agencies, we will see on food safety improvements in all of these areas.
In order to meet our goal of creating a national, seamless meat and poultry inspection program in the United States, we must address the current prohibition on interstate shipment of State-inspected products. The Clinton Administration is exploring how we can facilitate the goal of interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products. To proceed with this change as an important means of strengthening the State programs, we also need to meet other goals. For example, maintaining the health of consumers is essential. We would also want to remove regulatory burdens and create a seamless Federal-State inspection program from farm to table. We have discussed these various approaches at the recent meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection.
If we are to proceed with this change permitting interstate shipment of State-inspected product, it follows, however, that we must invest more in those State programs. We are committed to doing just that.
Funding is one way we can invest in State programs, and we are prepared to explore current funding limitations. Removal of the interstate shipment prohibition we believe would increase the influx of "very small" plants to State inspection programs. This would allow the State programs to gain efficiencies in their operations through economies of scale. On the downside, more plants would translate to higher total costs and could threaten the existence of State programs. In return for States assuming inspection responsibilities for those plants relinquishing grants of Federal inspection, we believe it is appropriate to explore removing the 50 percent cap on Federal reimbursement to State inspection programs. There are many hurdles that such a proposal would have to clear, but we are committed to trying.
We also intend to invest in State programs by enhancing our oversight. Public confidence that State programs are "at least equal to" the Federal inspection program is imperative, consistent with the idea of one national program. Today, a state inspection program may go as long as 5 years between comprehensive reviews. We believe it is critical that every State program undergo a comprehensive review, prior to the lifting of the interstate shipment prohibition, to address the concerns raised by many stakeholders, and that on-site, annual comprehensive reviews be designed and conducted.
We would also need to more fully integrate the Federal and State programs in terms of food safety standards, sampling programs, and computer capabilities. The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule sets food safety standards and establishes testing requirements that already apply to State plants. But we can expect that as future standards are set and testing programs developed, the States need to be included in those programs. We also need to extend our field computer capabilities to the State programs. Our Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM) program has been selected by the Industry Advisory Council as one of the top 20 successful information resource management projects in the Federal government. We are interested in including the States in our nationwide automation plans.
With new opportunities always come new responsibilities, and I would like to close with a few thoughts on this. While our National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection endorsed, with certain reservations, interstate shipment of State-inspected product, and the Clinton Administration supports this goal as well, there remain some concerns among consumer groups about the ability of State plants to ensure food safety.
FSIS will do its part so that these concerns are addressed, but each State needs to be sure it is doing what it can to earn national public confidence as well. There is much more we need to be doing to improve our food safety programs, from farm to table, and I urge you to become involved in the various ongoing activities. For instance, one of our priorities over the next several years is to determine, through quantitative risk assessments, what are the true risks in the food supply and their significance to public health. We need risk assessments to fine-tune existing performance standards and to set new ones. We also need risk assessments to ensure that every part of industry along the food safety continuum is taking the necessary steps to control hazards through HACCP systems.
Another project we have begun is to explore how we can change inspection to better use our finite resources to improve food safety, while still ensuring current consumer protections. Our resource-intensive, on-line activities in plants are keeping us, and you, from carrying out other tasks that could have a substantial benefit on food safety. For instance, there are new tasks related to HACCP, and we believe there are tasks we should perform in the distribution segment of the farm-to-table chain.
You also play a major role in farm-to-table food safety. Increasing pressure is being placed on the animal production community to take steps to reduce pathogens in live animals. We recognize that the science is not there yet to know exactly what management practices can reduce pathogens, but we are making some progress, and I urge you to support these efforts as well.
I also urge you to expand networks within your States and among States to coordinate food safety activities. I'm sure you have seen in recent years an increasing emphasis on partnerships and good working relationships as a means of improving food safety.
FSIS has improved its relationships with the public health community and with FDA, for instance, as a means of better responding to outbreaks of foodborne illness. I urge you to explore what steps you need to take to improve coordination in your States as well.
Closing
I am optimistic that our strategy for strengthening State programs will strengthen the Federal system as well. We are developing our strategy and taking the steps we need to take to carry it out, so it may be some time before concrete changes appear.
But I am confident that the results will be well worth the wait. I look forward to working with all of you in the months and years to come on our mutual goals of improving food safety, as well as the viability of small plants.
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