 |
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
Remarks prepared for delivery by Dr. Elsa Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, before the First World Congress on Food Irradiation, May 5, 2003, Chicago, Ill.
~Webmaster's Note: Links to the slides that accompanied this presentation are available throughout the text. To view the slide, click/select the thumbnail image. Use the BACK button for return to the text.
(Slide 1) Good morning. It's a pleasure
to join you today at this First World Congress on Food Irradiation. I certainly
want to thank the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State
University for sponsoring this meeting.
As some of you may know, in my past life before joining USDA, I was a researcher and educator in academia--first at Iowa State University and then at Texas A&M University. My professional background is in microbiology and food science, and irradiation is a topic in which I am well versed from a scientific perspective.
But I appear before you today in a different role--that of a public health and food safety regulatory official. That does not mean I have to throw what I know out the window. On the contrary, because food safety policies must be science-based, my background as a microbiologist and food scientist is extremely useful. But I will leave the technical discussions regarding irradiation to other speakers on the agenda and speak from my current role as a public health official.
(Slide 2)
Let's start with the burden of foodborne illness. While data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show progress in fighting foodborne
illness, the fact is, it remains a significant public health problem in the
United States. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 76 million
illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths are caused by foodborne
pathogens each year.
(Slide 3)
There are limitations to these data. As we well know, this is just an
estimate--many cases of foodborne illness go unreported. And we cannot be sure
how many of these illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths are caused by meat,
poultry, and processed eggs--the foods regulated by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS).
(Slide 4)
But we do know that these numbers are too high, and we must do
whatever is necessary to reduce illnesses as much as possible. That is why FSIS
is implementing a broad and long-term science-based strategy to improve the
safety of the products it regulates.
(Slide 5)
As the famous American critic and essayist Henry Mencken said, "For
every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong." I believe
his words ring true as we debate how to break the cycle of foodborne illness.
There is no one solution, and there are no simple answers.
(Slide 6) We also know that we are aiming for the proverbial "moving target."
That is the nature of public health. As knowledge improves, new problems are
identified, and new tools to reduce hazards are available, our strategies must
change as well.
I will now describe what actions we are taking and then discuss how irradiation fits into our broad strategy.
(Slide 7)
One of our strategies is to bridge gaps in our monitoring of food
safety systems. The majority of FSIS' regulatory authority lies within slaughter
and processing establishments. However, we recognize the need to work with our
government partners at the Federal, State and local levels, and with industry,
to encourage steps that will address food safety along the entire farm-to-table
continuum.
After all, we don't necessarily have to take a regulatory approach with every
problem--nor should we. (Slide 8)
For example, at the animal production level,
where FSIS does not have statutory authority to issue regulations, we want to
work with producers to develop voluntary guidelines to reduce pathogens before
animals ever reach federally inspected facilities.
Once products leave the processing plant, they are transported and held in all types of different facilities, including warehouses. Again, opportunities exist to address hazards at these points. FSIS has statutory authority to issue regulations here and to conduct inspections, but FSIS has not focused a large number of its resources at these points. FSIS is now considering what actions it could take that would impact public health.
And finally, food handlers in restaurants, schools, hospitals and individual
homes have an important role in keeping food safe. We certainly can't regulate
consumer behavior, but we can provide education, (Slide 9)
and that is what we
do day in and day out. I hope you have a chance to visit our new food safety
mobile, which is on exhibit at the Food Marketing Institute's annual meeting
right here at McCormick Place. The mobile is our way of taking food safety on
the road--literally--to reach food handlers nationwide.
(Slide 10)
Second, along with addressing the farm-to-table continuum, we need to
continue to improve our science-based policy making. This includes being able to
identify hazards that exist today as well as emerging hazards-- and developing
policies to address them. The implementation of HACCP in meat and poultry plants
was a major step in food safety history. But HACCP is simply a foundation on
which to build. HACCP systems must address the hazards identified, and both
industry and government must verify that these systems are working as designed.
Ensuring that HACCP systems address the hazards likely to occur is not a
one-time exercise but a continual process.
(Slide 11)
We have been carrying out our science-based policy making with the
help of risk analysis. Good examples are our risk assessments for Listeria
monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 and the policy changes we are anticipating as
a result. We need to improve the risk analysis infrastructure for policy making
because risk analysis allows us to prioritize our policy-making activities based
on the public health outcomes they are expected to achieve, and it allows us to
make policy changes that are more effective.
(Slide 12)
And third, along with science-based policy making, we need to
encourage the application of validated decontamination methods throughout the
farm-to-table continuum. This is an example of where we all must work together
for progress to occur. Industry must ensure that the decontamination methods it
uses are validated, for they are of little use without this important step.
Researchers must work to develop new technologies that can be used
farm-to-table. Government has a role as well. (Slide 13)
FSIS has made a
conscious effort to encourage industry to use new decontamination technologies
within plants, but we intend to streamline the approval process for such
technologies as much as possible so we do not hinder industry innovation.
(Slide 14) With these three efforts underway--bridging the gaps in monitoring
food safety systems, improving science-based policy-making, and ensuring the
application of validated decontamination methods-- I believe we can make great
progress in our goal of improving public health.
(Slide 15) I'd like to now talk about irradiation in the context of the need for
validated decontamination methods, because it is one more tool available--in
addition to other methods such as antimicrobial sprays and rinses-- to reduce
contamination on meat and poultry products.
As a public health regulatory agency, the decision to approve decontamination methods is based on whether the technology is safe and effective. Irradiation meets both of these criteria. Irradiation has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for meat and poultry as well as for a variety of other foods. Irradiation has been endorsed and supported by many highly respected public health organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization. In fact, it is one of the most thoroughly researched processes in existence.
(Slide 16)
Even though irradiation has been approved for various meat and
poultry products at different dose levels for years, irradiation has received
much attention recently largely due to congressional action associated with the
2002 Farm Bill. The bill included several provisions related to irradiation. For
example, it mandated that commodities such as meat and poultry that are treated
by any technology approved by USDA and FDA to improve food safety – of which
irradiation unquestionably applies -- must be made available to the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP). It also directs FSIS to develop an educational program on
irradiated meat and poultry products.
(Slide 17)
At this time, FSIS is working with the Food and Nutrition Service and
Agricultural Marketing Service to implement the Farm Bill provision to make
irradiated product available through the commodity program. At present, FNS is
pilot testing educational materials through the state of Minnesota. These
materials are being developed so schools--and the families they serve--- will
have the educational materials they need to make an informed decision once
irradiated products are offered. USDA's goal is to be as open and transparent as
possible.
(Slide 18)
FSIS also is charged with educating the broader public about
irradiation and other processes to reduce pathogen levels on meat and poultry,
and we are working on this project now. For example, a brochure on irradiation
is being developed that will be tested by focus groups. In addition, we are
considering partnering with universities around the country to educate the
educators about irradiation.
Recent news articles have covered the reaction to Congress' mandate to permit irradiated meat and poultry in the school lunch program, and we know from calls to our Meat and Poultry Hotline that consumers have many questions. These questions range from whether hamburgers can be served "rare" if irradiated ground beef is used, to what type of labeling is required for irradiated products.
I think such debates and questions are to be expected. Even though irradiation
is not a new technology, it is certainly more widespread now.
(Slide 19)
We must respect the consumer's right to choose what he or she wants
to purchase, and that is why the labeling requirements are so important. At the
same time, it's clear that we must educate the public so they can make informed
decisions.
There are two points I believe it is imperative that we make in our education
programs (Slide 20).
First, FSIS inspects all meat and poultry products, including those that are irradiated, and these plants cannot use irradiation to substitute for good sanitation and process control.
Second, consumers need to know that while irradiation reduces the level of pathogens, it generally does not make meat or poultry products sterile. The process does not replace proper cooking or food handling practices by producers, retailers, and consumers.
(Slide 21)
In closing, I believe irradiation offers us an important tool in our
fight against foodborne illness. But it is just that--another tool, not the only
tool available. I encourage those of you who develop new technologies to
continue your efforts because I believe that innovation will have an important
role in enabling us to reach our public health goals.
- End -
For Further Information:
FSIS Congressional and Public Affairs Staff
Phone: (202) 720-3897
Fax: (202) 720-5704