GAO Report - Food Safety

Here is the summary from the Sept. 26 GAO report about food safety and FDA oversight of produce:


In recent years, both domestic and imported produce have been linked to reported outbreaks of foodborne illness. Contamination in produce is of particular concern because produce is often consumed raw. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of both domestic and imported fresh produce. GAO was asked to examine (1) the resources FDA has spent on fresh produce safety and how it has allocated those resources, (2) the effectiveness of FDA's actions to oversee fresh produce safety, and (3) the extent to which FDA's planned actions to enhance fresh produce oversight address identified challenges. For this review, GAO analyzed FDA spending data and estimates and FDA activities data, reviewed FDA plans, and interviewed FDA officials and others.
While FDA has considered fresh produce safety a priority for many years, resource constraints and other work--including counterterrorism efforts and unplanned events such as foodborne illness outbreaks--have caused FDA to delay key produce safety activities. FDA has no formal program devoted exclusively to fresh produce and has not consistently and reliably tracked its fresh produce spending. Based on FDA estimates, FDA spent at least $20 million and 130 staff years on fresh produce in fiscal year 2007--or about 3 percent of its food safety dollars and 4 percent of its food safety staff years. In addition, FDA had few staff dedicated solely to fresh produce safety. Moreover, FDA acknowledged that it has not yet been able to conduct certain fresh produce work crucial to understanding the incidence of contamination of produce by pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella, because it has lacked the resources to either fund its extramural research grant program or perform some critical research internally. Finally, FDA delayed issuing final fresh-cut produce guidance at least 6 years because it had to shift staff to counterterrorism and outbreak investigation work. FDA has provided limited oversight of domestic and imported fresh produce. For example, while FDA has issued guidance for industry on recommended practices for reducing the risk of contamination during the processing of fresh-cut produce, it has not issued regulations requiring firms to take action to prevent contamination, even though some industry groups would like it to do so. FDA's intervention efforts have also been limited. Specifically, domestic fresh produce firms were inspected infrequently. Furthermore, FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce lines imported from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Finally, FDA has improved some elements of its emergency response by, for example, partnering with California on outbreak investigations. However, it faces challenges in tracing an outbreak involving fresh produce back to its source because produce is highly perishable and may no longer be available for testing. Also, when product is available, it may be unlabeled or mixed in packages containing products from multiple sources. FDA has proposed changes through its Food Protection Plan that could significantly enhance its fresh produce oversight. However, the agency is still in the planning stages for several enhancements and has not provided specific information on strategies and resources, making it difficult to assess the likelihood of success. To help prevent contamination, FDA plans to update its existing guidance on good agricultural practices and regulations on current good manufacturing practice for food, and has identified a need for explicit authority to issue preventive safety regulations for high-risk foods and enhanced access to records. To enhance intervention efforts, FDA plans to use more rigorous risk-based criteria to target domestic firm inspections and is testing a new import screening software tool. To improve response efforts, FDA is examining best practices for tracing contaminated foods to their source.

Part 3 - WPPC- FDA meeting Sept. 11 Jack Guzewich

John (Jack) Guzewich had a quick-paced delivery, and the remarks below are only the first portion of his comments at the WPPC FDA meeting on Sept. 11. In the later Q and A session, Jack often takes a lead role in explaining the FDA position, usually with refreshing frankness.

From his bio:

John (Jack) Guzewich is a senior environmental health scientist in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration, where he has worked since 1977.

From his remarks:


Good afternoon everyone. I will speak a little bit on outbreak investigations and a little bit about traceback.
Outbreaks in the United States are investigated by state and local public health agencies. A lot of people have gotten the impression during the recent Salmonella Saintpual outbreak that FDA is in some way involved in the outbreak investigation, but that really isn’t the case.
In the United States, responsibility for epidemiology and surveillance in pending outbreaks lies primarily with state and local public health agencies.
And that was the case in this recent outbreak. It was first detected by New Mexico and Texas health departments, their health public health lab and epidemiologists at the state and local level. As the investigation expanded to ultimately 43 states, the District of Columbia and Canada, those investigations were conducted in all those states primarily by state and local health agencies sometimes working in partnership with their state departments of agriculture.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta job was to provide consultations with those state and local agencies, in a coordinating role. Initially this investigation recently conducted was led by New Mexico, because they were the first ones who detected the outbreak
As it became apparent it involved more than New Mexico, that it was Texas, that it was more states, that baton was passed on to CDC and CDC performed in a coordinating role after that; they held over 50 conference calls involving all the organizations; they had epidemiologists in Atlanta that were heavily involved in compiling information and analyzing it, along with the states. They sent people from Atlanta out to work in several states on what are called epidemiology aids or assistants to these state and local investigations and perform what state or locals requested of CDC.
So the activities that made the link to tomatoes initially and later peppers were made by the epidemiologists and laboratory agencies at local, state, and CDC levels, respectively.
FDA gets involved when those agencies come to us and say “we’ve implicated an FDA regulated food.”

It would appear no food product in China is immune from contamination

China's missteps on food safety continue. From the desk of Rep. DeLauro:

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3), chairwoman of the Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee, issued the following statement about China’s growing milk scandal.

“The recent scandal involving contaminated milk products from China clearly demonstrates that significant work remains for China to reform its food safety system. While the FDA has said that no contaminated baby formula has been legally imported into the U.S. from China, it is certainly possible that other dairy products including powdered milk and milk protein products have entered the United States, as they have in Europe.

“Between pet food last year and baby formula this year, it would appear that no food product in China is immune from contamination. If we are to avoid a food-borne illness catastrophe from occurring in the U.S., the FDA must be hyper vigilant about monitoring all imported food products from China. And given the mounting evidence of China’s inability to ensure the quality of their food products, the Department of Agriculture must reconsider its plan to allow for the importation of Chinese poultry products into the United States.”

Chat - Valerie Hannig

Valerie Hannig, Newark-Del.-based food safety and government relations administrator for The Oppenheimer Group, took time for a Fresh Talk chat this morning. Valerie is also a member(since June 2007) of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group.


9:01 AM me: This still a good time for you?
9:01 AM valerie: Yep
9:02 AM Great. Thanks for being part of another Fresh Talk chat. Also, thanks for being a part of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group. It's nice to see the group grow, and I appreciate your participation. Tell us a little about your job in the produce industry...

9:06 AM valerie: I work for The Oppenheimer Group, an importer of fresh produce as the Food Safety & Government Regulations Administrator. Basically I deal with any Food Safety Issues, Import Permits; Pesticide, Organic, and other regulatory issues, as well as point person for our C-TPAT and COOL programs.

9:08 AM me: That's a lot on your plate. Take us back to the beginnings. Where did you grow up and how did your life path lead you to the wonderful world of fresh produce?

9:10 AM valerie: I grew up in central New Jersey. My parents were both educators. I originally wanted to work in plant genetic research. I went to Delaware Valley College and was told I would have to double major in Food Industry and Biology, so I just majored in Food Industry.
9:16 AM Basically when you graduated back then you went into Production, Quality Control, or Research and Development. Back then women were usually hired as QC. I started out in the meat industry in the lab doing protein and fat analysis. I moved to Massachusetts and worked in the fresh salad industry (meat, pasta, etc.) Not only did I have to come up with new salads, I also was in charge of QC which also meant food safety. I got pretty burnt out working in the manufacturing environment so I got out of it, but I would not have traded the experiences I had for anything.

9:20 AM me: I appreciated seeing you at United public policy conference - where you reminded me I owe you a coffee mug (I'm working on it - sorta) What kind of industry events do you attend, given the scope of your responsibilities? How did you like the WPPC this year?

9:25 AM valerie: I go to all things regulatory. I am a member of the UFPA Food Safety & Technology Council which is a really great group of people! I really enjoyed the WPPC this year. I have to say, when I went to it 2 years ago I saw eyes glazing over at the mention of food safety, and I thought, the produce industry is the next to get hit. The next day was the Spinach Crisis. Unfortunately, it always takes something like this to get the affected industry to get on the ball, but I have seen great things happen in the 2 years since!

9:29 AM I have to say, after all my years in different industries, when I look back there has been a major change in the attitude towards food safety. The problem I see now is that I live this and I talk to consumers who , for example, have no clue what listeria is. That bothers me because they really need to be informed, so I am trying, in my own small way to get the word out. Your blog, as well as Barfblog is a big help as well.

9:32 AM me: I promised not to keep you longer than 30 minutes, and my time is up. Thanks for checking in Valerie, and we will do another chat again, if you would. Thanks and keep watching for the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group coffee mug!

9:33 AM valerie: Sure thing!! Anytime--Thanks for asking me!

E-Verify: on the ropes?

Given its potential severe impact on the industry and its inherent flaws, many produce industry leaders wouldn't mind if E-Verify went away. Not everyone feels that way. From The Washington Times this morning, a opinion piece by Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform:



No one knows exactly what the fallout will be from the government's trillion-dollar bailout of our nation's debt-ridden financial institutions. What is certain is that in the short and medium term, the pain resulting from years of mismanagement, malfeasance, fraud, and criminal negligence on the part of the corporate elite — and the lack of oversight by Congress and the administration — will be felt by millions of Americans who did nothing to create the mess.
Even before our entire economic system reached the verge of total meltdown last week, there were unmistakable signs that we were in for some very hard times. Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. economy has shed more than half-a-million jobs and the rise in unemployment shows no sign of abating. With an election looming just six weeks away, the economy, jobs and preservation of the middle class are just about the only issues on the minds of voters.

No one knows exactly what the fallout will be from the government's trillion-dollar bailout of our nation's debt-ridden financial institutions. What is certain is that in the short and medium term, the pain resulting from years of mismanagement, malfeasance, fraud, and criminal negligence on the part of the corporate elite — and the lack of oversight by Congress and the administration — will be felt by millions of Americans who did nothing to create the mess.
Even before our entire economic system reached the verge of total meltdown last week, there were unmistakable signs that we were in for some very hard times. Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. economy has shed more than half-a-million jobs and the rise in unemployment shows no sign of abating. With an election looming just six weeks away, the economy, jobs and preservation of the middle class are just about the only issues on the minds of voters.
But even as millions of American workers face an uncertain economic future, one of the few government protections for their jobs is about to disappear. Unless the Senate reauthorizes the E-Verify system that allows employers to avoid hiring illegal aliens by electronically checking workers' Social Security numbers, the program will expire in November. Reauthorization is hardly controversial. The House has already reauthorized a five-year extension of E-Verify by a lopsided 407-2 vote; it is more than 99 percent accurate; and several states now require businesses to verify workers' immigration status.
Only one obstacle stands between American workers and continued protection against losing their jobs to illegal aliens: Sen, Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat. Reauthorization of E-Verify by the Senate is being held hostage by Mr. Menendez, who is demanding the inclusion of an amendment to "recapture" unused immigration visas dating back to 1992.
In all, Mr. Menendez's amendment would require the issuance of some 570,000 new green cards — a figure roughly equal to the number of jobs our economy has lost this year alone. About half of those green cards would be allocated to work-related immigration categories and the other half to family-based categories, most of whom would also be entering the labor force.


Mr. Menendez may not be able to see Wall Street from his front porch in New Jersey, but he can probably see many of the investment bankers and hedge-fund managers who created the biggest economic disaster this country has seen since the Great Depression (and no doubt he sees many of them at his campaign fundraisers). These and other captains of American business continue to press for more workers, even as unemployment rises, and the elimination of protections for American workers such as E-Verify.
Over the next six weeks, American voters are certain to hear expressions of concern from politicians of every stripe and promises of real reform in Washington. Meanwhile, as the days pass by, it is increasingly likely that the Senate will decamp from Washington without reauthorizing an existing program that is actually working to the benefit of middle-class workers.
Given the trillion-dollar disaster many in Congress failed to avert, and the far-reaching repercussions of the massive bailout plan to this and future generations of American workers, it would seem that the least the Senate leadership can do is remove the roadblock that is Mr. Menendez and take a vote on the E-Verify reauthorization bill that passed the House by a 405-vote margin. Failure to do so will be a clear indication that in spite of the all the hand wringing and fingerpointing, the culture of special-interest politics in Washington that brought our economy to precipice is not likely to change.


There is every justification for reauthorizing E-Verify - a program that already exists and has already proven to protect American workers from losing their jobs to illegal aliens. There is no possible rationale for holding a fire sale on more than half a million new green cards while our economy is teetering on the edge and millions of American workers are likely to pay for mistakes they had no part in making. And there is certainly no justification for holding E-Verify hostage to the demands of those who made the trillion-dollar mistakes.


Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.