 |
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 |
Speeches
Food Safety and Inspection
Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be here and to be a part of your annual convention. Today I’m here to talk about the direction USDA is headed with food safety. But before I talk about where we want to go, I want to take a few moments to reflect on where we’ve been.
When I began this job four months ago, I spent some time thinking about how far food safety has come in the last decade. One of the things I realized is that we have a strong food safety infrastructure in place today, and HACCP is at the core of this infrastructure. More than 6,000 meat and poultry plants have implemented HACCP, and in FSIS alone, more than 7,600 inspection personnel verify the safety of the meat and poultry products produced under HACCP. I remember telling my students at Texas A&M University back in 1996 how this was history in the making. So, the implementation of HACCP is an accomplishment we can all be proud of. In fact, the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule has allowed us to improve in many areas.
First, Salmonella testing data shows that since the implementation of the rule, the prevalence of this pathogen has significantly decreased in all meat and poultry product categories, including beef carcasses and ground beef.
Second, small and very small plants have improved in their business practices, having increased the number of audits they perform on suppliers by 20%.
And third, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, the net economicimpact of the rule has been an increase of $9.3 billion in household income (1993 dollars) due to reduction in foodborne illness. Just in case you doubt that meat and poultry safety has been enhanced, the Center for the Science in the Public Interest recently published a report in which seafood, fruits, vegetables, and raw eggs lead the list of vehicles of foodborne illness, with meat and poultry behind them.
These successes are impressive, and as such, they’ve provided us with the energy and motivation to keep going. Today, I’d like to discuss five goals that I believe will help us to keep going and to take food safety to a new level. These are not listed in any particular order, because they must all be pursued with equal vigor in order to accomplish our mission of protecting the public’s health:
I am confident that we can make progress in all of these areas because of the bright outlook for FSIS funding for FY 2003. The President’s budget calls for a $28 million increase over FY 2002, a record high for our programs. So, let me review for you what I intend to do to advance these five goals.
As you know, FSIS has a long history of success in dealing with food emergencies, and a strong food safety infrastructure in place to protect animal and public health. But even a localized event that does not cause significant harm can greatly undermine consumer confidence nationwide. That is why USDA is taking a multi-faceted approach to biosecurity that includes both short- and long-term strategies.
The Bush Administration has proposed an allocation of $328 million in emergency funding for USDA to strengthen essential programs and services related to biosecurity issues, with some of those funds being earmarked specifically to FSIS.
FSIS will receive $15 million for security upgrades and bioterrorism protection. These monies will be allocated to activities such as education and specialized training for inspection personnel; expanded FSIS laboratory capabilities to test meat and poultry products for bacterial and chemical agents; and to strengthen biosecurity, physical security, cyber-security, and telecommunications at mission-critical facilities.
Within USDA, we have our own Homeland Security Council to coordinate activities with Governor Ridge’s Office of Homeland Security. Within USDA’s Council, the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Bill Hawks) and I are co-chairs of a sub-group charged with coordinating activities among the various mission areas within the department so we can better prepare and respond to terrorist activities that may affect not only food, but also agriculture. This is basically the same group that existed prior to September 11th, called FERRET.
We are also working to enhance coordination of biosecurity activities outside USDA. With the help of Deputy Secretary Moseley and of HHS Deputy Secretary Allen, we formed the Food Threat Preparedness Network, also known as PrepNet. This group is co-chaired by the Acting Administrator of FSIS and the Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA. Members include EPA, APHIS, DOD, CDC, and state and local health agencies.
The focus of this new group is preparedness as well as rapid response. PrepNet is coordinating the application of respective statutory authorities where appropriate. The sharing of laboratory capabilities and expertise with specific food bornehazards is also underway. Such joint activities are long overdue, and as one of the overseers of this program, I am committed to keeping these efforts moving forward.
The link between USDA and PrepNet is F-BAT—the Food Biosecurity Action Team. It’s the folks within FSIS who do the work of protecting meat and poultry. This is something they’ve always done as part of their duties at FSIS and are now focusing their expertise and experience towards food biosecurity. You might say that F-BAT is the “arms and legs” in charge of carrying out the food protection and preparedness activities at USDA, and of the intergovernmental entity PrepNet, as it relates to meat and poultry.
One of the efforts F-BAT has been involved in is the development of industry security guidelines. These guidelines were developed in consultation with industry and consumer groups, and include a comprehensive list of security measures for meat, poultry and egg product establishments. We are aware that some industry groups have already issued security guidelines, but a number of small and very small establishments do not belong to an association and thus have limited access to available guidelines. Our guidelines should be posted on our web site in the coming weeks, and distributed to establishments by the end of next month. We hope that all regulated establishments will review and implement them as appropriate.
In addition to enhancing biosecurity efforts, my second goal is to enhance coordination of traditional food safety activities within and outside of USDA. This has been going on for some time, with the active participation of FSIS in joint efforts with our sister agencies. The FoodNet active surveillance system for foodborne diseases is a good example of how we have been working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
We have several additional efforts underway. For example, within USDA, we’re working to improve the coordination of activities of FSIS veterinarians with those in APHIS. This is the result of a blue-ribbon task force, which published a report last year on the future role of veterinarians. One effort is to engage in joint training opportunities in foreign animal diseases, and to coordinate emergency preparedness and food biosecurity by enhancing the linkages among all veterinarians, whether they work at FSIS or APHIS.
Outside of USDA, we are working with FDA on various efforts. One of them—PrepNet—I’ve already mentioned. As you may know, FSIS and FDA have had an agreement in place since 1999 to exchange information on an on-going basis about dual jurisdiction establishments. The agreement has limitations, mainly due to the differences between the laws that govern what FSIS does vs. those that govern FDA. I believe there are other opportunities for us to enhance coordination with FDA in these types of establishments to further leverage our resources for the maximum public health benefit.
We are currently working on a couple of initiatives with FDA that will be truly groundbreaking in this area. One initiative includes the possibility of deputizing FSIS inspectors, in emergency situations, to help FDA address threats to the food supply beyond meat, poultry, or egg products. We believe that since FSIS inspectors are already deployed nationwide in plants, and have the training to address both intentional and unintentional threats to the food supply, that they are in a unique position to respond to any such incidents. We hope to have an announcement in the near future on other joint FSIS-FDA initiatives.
A third goal for the coming year is to enhance the scientific basis of existing food safety policies and systems. My background as a food safety researcher has shown me the importance of science and how it should influence policy. Achievement of this goal is essential if we are to make sound decisions in protecting the public’s health.
One way to accomplish this is to use risk assessments as a way to identify hazards and provide a basis for making risk management decisions. We are gaining more experience in this area, and are able to better use the data currently generated by FSIS through its regulatory programs to make policy decisions. But the analyses we make must be complete, and the models that are generated must stand the rigor of the peer-review process.
We also need to ensure that the three parts of the risk analysis framework—risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication—are working in concert. Risk assessors, managers, and communicators should be working together from the very beginning of the process to ensure that the risk assessment will answer the right questions.
Risk assessment studies must be designed to discover not only what the risk is, but also how changing our behavior or our practices will affect that risk. Then, we must be able to communicate this risk to consumers.
The E. coli O157:H7 risk assessment is something I know you are interested in - let me take a minute to update you on its status. The risk assessment is now being peer reviewed by the National Academy of Science. They should be finished by April or May of this year. So far, no problems have been identified with the risk assessment model, so we plan to begin using the model to evaluate policy options next month. The idea is to determine how various strategies may impact risk, based on the model, and to make policy changes where and if appropriate.
Another topic I want to discuss related to science-based policy development is performance standards. Science tells us that performance standards are needed, since they 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 control of hazards has been lost. Only with such standards can enforcement be justified.
As you know, we have turned to the scientific community to get input on microbiological performance standards. Both the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods and the National Academy of Sciences are studying this issue. The Advisory Committee has begun its process and should have some recommendations by this fall. The NAS committee has a more arduous task ahead, answering questions such as: Do microbial performance standards improve public health? What are the appropriate performance standards that should be applied in meat and poultry? And, what is the appropriate role for these standards? Certainly, we must realize that changing standards should be done carefully, and with the support of science. Thus, change for change’s sake will not be pursued, but rather a change that will contribute to the improvement of food safety. As I said, performance standards are an important verification tool for HACCP, so the work of the Advisory Committee and NAS will go a long way towards helping us determine how to select the right standards, and what compliance with these standards really means in terms of improving public health.
In the meantime, we are continuing to sample, using the performance standards already in place. We are using sampling results as one way to verify whether the HACCP or sanitation standard operating procedures implemented by industry are successfully controlling hazards reasonably likely to occur.
As you know, our inspectors are charged with such verification activities. Thus, record reviews, visual monitoring of plant personnel, and product sampling are the tools they are using to determine whether HACCP and sanitation systems are working. We already know that the vast majority of enforcement actions taken by FSIS since implementation of the pathogen reduction/HACCP rule have to do with HACCP or SSOP failures, and not with violation of pathogen reduction performance standards. This is evidence that for food safety to be enhanced, verification of HACCP and SSOP implementation are crucial components.
As part of our efforts to ensure our policy decisions are science-based, we hosted a two-day public meeting at the end of January to discuss the role of epidemiology in investigating foodborne illness outbreaks and initiating product recalls.
When we announced this meeting, we indicated there would be a series of meetings to discuss how FSIS can integrate scientific principles into its activities and decision-making. In that context, we are planning a symposium for the spring to discuss the state of pathogen reduction measures, including HACCP and performance standards. In addition, we are planning a risk analysis symposium for the fall. These symposia will provide an opportunity for an open discussion of ideas – this is something we need to do now to tap into the expertise of the scientific community. We’ll have more details on the spring Symposium in the coming weeks.
The next goal I have for the coming year is to enhance our outreach and public education efforts. I want FSIS to be the entity that consumers look to for guidance regarding food safety. I am seeking an aggressive education and risk communications campaign within USDA to ensure that our efforts are recognized, and that consumers have confidence in our system.
One of the ways we plan to do this is with a food safety education conference. The conference will be sponsored by both USDA and HHS, in cooperation with the Partnership for Food Safety Education. We’re planning the conference for this fall (Sept 2002) 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.
I would like to help recharge the batteries of the Partnership for Food Safety Education. This is the entity responsible for our FightBac!™ Campaign, and many great materials have been developed through its efforts to better educate consumers of all ages. One good example is the Listeria fact sheet for obstetricians and their patients.
However, the key to success in education is not only in developing the right materials, but it is also delivering them effectively to the right audiences. In this regard, we have a long way to go!
I would like nothing more than to reach every American with the message of food safety, especially parents. I welcome your ideas, your support, and your enthusiasm and invite you to contact the Partnership to see where you can get involved in this effort.
My final goal for the coming year is to improve the management and efficiency of FSIS programs. Many of the efforts related to this goal started before I came on board. Some of the ways we’re doing this is through a restructuring of our district offices and providing more training for our field workforce.
As you know, 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 reduce the number of district offices from 17 to 15, with two current offices that will serve as sub-district offices.
Last March, FSIS conducted reviews of small and very small federally inspected meat and poultry establishments in New York City and the New Jersey Metropolitan Area. This review illustrated three important lessons to me.
First, that communication within FSIS needs to be improved. We need to ensure that information flows freely from top-bottom, as well as from bottom-top.
Second, that we need to be accountable for our actions. Without accountability at all levels of an organization, the most perfect ideas and programs are doomed to fail.
And third, we need to ensure that all of our employees have the training and expertise needed to protect public health. As part of this effort, we are increasing the proportion of public health and scientific professionals on our frontlines. FSIS recently selected and trained 35 consumer safety officers, who are now verifying that plants have validated their HACCP plans, as well as sanitation and microbiological testing programs.
We also intend to review training procedures for plant inspectors and enhance HACCP training to ensure that all of our inspectors clearly understand their responsibilities. Our inspection force is our lifeline, they are the eyes and ears of the Agency and our connection to safeguarding the public’s health. I am committed to ensuring that it is the best trained, and best supervised workforce possible.
In closing, I want to thank you again for inviting me here to be a part of your conference. I know I’ve talked about a lot of different initiatives today. But if there is one thing you glean from my remarks, I hope it is that the Bush Administration is absolutely committed to food safety and determined to take it to a new level.
Using the goals I’ve outlined for USDA and FSIS, I know this can be done. I invite you, as well as other industry and consumer groups, to participate in the process that guides us to achieve these goals. Thank you.
For Further Information:
FSIS Congressional and Public Affairs Staff
Phone: (202) 720-3897
Fax: (202) 720-5704