Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Food Safety Regulation
Director: Kimberly Dickstein
© 2008 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
Congress 2008. Use for other purposes is not permitted
without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
Policy Dilemma _______________________________________________________________1
Chronology___________________________________________________________________2
1862 – Establishment of Department of Agriculture _____________________________________ 2
1863 – Pasteurization ______________________________________________________________ 3
1885 – Daniel Salmon works with Salmonellae _________________________________________ 3
1904 – Typhoid Mary ______________________________________________________________ 4
1906 – The Jungle, Pure Food and Drug Act, Meat Inspection Act _________________________ 5
1938 – Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act _________________________________________________ 6
1967 – Wholesome Meat Act ________________________________________________________ 6
2003 – Mad Cow Disease Outbreak___________________________________________________ 7
2007 – Topps Meat Company _______________________________________________________ 7
Actors and Interests ____________________________________________________________8
US Food and Drug Administration ___________________________________________________ 8
US Department of Agriculture______________________________________________________ 10
American Meat Institute __________________________________________________________ 12
Possible Causes ______________________________________________________________12
Conflict between the USDA and the FDA_____________________________________________ 12
Contradictions within the USDA ____________________________________________________ 13
Works Cited _________________________________________________________________15
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
1
Policy Dilemma
Recent events involving bacterial contamination of food have brought food safety
regulations to the minds of citizens and politicians alike. Most recent events relate back
to E coli contamination in meat and produce, but any bacterial disease can infect a food
product and lead to a nationwide epidemic. Consumers put trust in inspections and
standards overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, and while these laws
ensure almost complete food safety, contamination of food is still a concern. The World
Health Organization estimates that every year there are around 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses, with 350,000 resulting in hospitalization and 5,000 resulting in death in
the United States.1 These staggering statistics are resultant of two major sources: poor
food preparation and infected foodstuffs. While proper cooking methods effectively kill
naturally occurring bacteria in food, such as salmonellae, other sources of disease cannot
be killed simply by bringing the food to a safe temperature.
Salmonellae, campylobacter and E coli O157:H7 are the most common types of
harmful bacteria found in food, and are therefore a major concern when discussing food
safety.2 Salmonellae and campylobacter are both naturally occurring bacteria present in
poultry, but cooking chicken or turkey to a temperature of at least 180 degrees Fahrenheit
ensures that these bacteria are killed.3 E-coli, found most commonly in cattle, cannot be
effectively cooked out of infected beef or dairy products. E-coli contamination is a result
of cattle feces contaminating beef or dairy products, and only microscopic amounts are
necessary to cause infection in humans.4 While these three bacteria are responsible for
the majority of food-borne illnesses, other illnesses such as typhoid, hepatitis and
different parasites can be transmitted via foods.
1
World Health Organization, “Food Safety and Food Born Illness,” March 2007,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/ (accessed 11 March 2008)
2
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Food-borne Illness”,
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/food-borneinfections_g.htm#mostcommon (accessed 11 March 2008)
3
Illinois Department of Public Health, “Recommended Safe Cooking Temperatures,”
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/fdd/safecooktemp.htm (accessed 11 March 2008)
4
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
2
Problems also arise with the safety of imported foods. Foodstuffs imported from
other countries, while undergoing inspections once they are brought into the United
States, are not held to the same standards as domestic foods.
The other problem
associated with imported foods is the handling of foods in other countries. While the
United States has strict food handling and storage regulations, other countries do not and
disease can be transferred to foods during either harvest or travel to the United States.
While increased screening at ports can reduce the chance of food-borne illness, it also
slows down commerce and can have a negative impact on profits.
In order to prevent spread of food-borne illnesses, proper food preparation
techniques must be paired with effective food inspection. Currently, food safety falls
upon the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration,
and state departments of agriculture, and local boards of health, with these being
responsible for enforcing proper food storage and preparation techniques. While the
United States has been relatively successful in preventing the spread of diseases through
food, recent events have brought food safety back into the spotlight and have been cause
for concern among citizens and politicians alike.
Chronology
1862 – Establishment of Department of Agriculture
On 15 May 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law a bill proposed by
Congress to create a Department of Agriculture at the cabinet level.5
The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) works to prevent food-borne illness by teaching
proper food handling techniques, encouraging food irradiation, assisting with food recalls
and certifying food products for public sale.6 USDA labels are commonplace on packages
of meats, with both certifications of inspection and grading being the prominent form of
5
National Agricultural Library, “Abraham Lincoln and Agriculture,”
http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/exhibits/lincoln/index.html (accessed 11 March 2008)
6
United States Department of Agriculture, “Food and Nutrition”,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=FOOD_SAFETY&parentnav=FOOD_NUTRITI
ON&navtype=RT (accessed 12 March 2008)
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
3
rating meat for sale. The USDA inspects food with its Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) branch, which is mandatory for all meat and poultry producers.7 The
FSIS inspects all raw meat for domestic and international sale, and also inspects imported
meat to ensure proper food safety.8 At the expense of meat and poultry processors, the
FSIS can assign grades to the meats, with varying systems used for each type of meat.
The full FSIS grading scale for each type of meat can be seen at the link in the footnote
below, but in general, higher grade meats are sold at retail stores, while lower grade
meats are either not labeled when sold or used in further processed products that involve
chopping or grinding the meat.9 While the USDA did not associate itself with food
inspections from its inception, it has adapted to fit the needs of the US food market and to
ensure the safety of all US citizens.
1863 – Pasteurization
In 1863, in an attempt to rid wine of inconsistencies causing undesirable taste,
Louis Pasteur came up with a process of heating wine to rid it of microorganisms causing
the inconsistencies in the taste.10 This process has come to be known as pasteurization,
and is commonplace in the food industry today. Pasteurization can be used to prolong
shelf life of foods and increase quality, with pasteurized milk and cheese being the foods
most commonly known for this preservation process. Pasteurization is a critical step in
both improving food quality and preventing food-borne illness, and without it food safety
would be a greater concern to consumers.
1885 – Daniel Salmon works with Salmonellae
Dr. Daniel Salmon, a veterinarian, first discovered the bacteria salmonella in
1885.11 This specific strain of bacteria is commonly found in poultry, and is responsible
7
Food and Safety Inspection Service, “Inspection and Grading, What are the Differences?”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Inspection_&_Grading/index.asp (accessed 12 March 2008)
8
Ibid
9
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Inspection_&_Grading/index.asp
10
University of Louisville, “A Lecture by David V. Cohn,”
http://louisville.edu/library/ekstrom/special/pasteur/cohn.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
11
“What are Salmonella?” http://www.salmonella.org/info.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
4
for the illness salmonellosis, which is a common form of food poisoning.12 As with most
other types of food poisoning, salmonella infections results in fever, cramps and diarrhea,
with most cases lasting four to seven days and not requiring medical treatment. 13
Salmonellosis is most commonly contracted from eating undercooked poultry, from cross
contamination resulting from cooked foods coming into contact with raw poultry, or from
other meats contacting raw poultry and then being cooked under required temperature for
poultry. Salmonellosis is easily avoided with proper food preparation and handling, but
is still a concern amongst consumers.
Individual departments of health provide
information on how to prevent spread of Salmonella and some require food-handling
certificates for those working in restaurants or other food retailers.
1904 – Typhoid Mary
Mary Mallon, an Irish immigrant in the United States, was a cook for Charles
Henry Warren and his family during the summer of 1906.14 Unbeknownst to Mallon, she
was one of a small percentage of people capable of carrying the disease typhoid without
showing symptoms or suffering at all from the disease. During the summer working for
Warren, six of the eleven people staying at the Warren’s house on Oyster Bay, New York
came down with typhoid fever.15 After leaving the Warrens, Mallon continued to work
as a cook until a New York City health inspector arrested her and tested her for typhoid. 16
Once her infection was confirmed, she was quarantined for three years on the grounds of
Riverside Hospital, released and instructed not to work with food again, and then arrested
again and put into quarantine for the rest of her life after violating her agreement with the
New York Department of Health.17 While Mallon’s case is one of extreme measures
12
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Salmonellosis,”
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_g.htm#What%20is%20salmonellosis (accessed 12
March 2008)
13
Ibid
14
Newsday, “Dinner with Typhoid Mary,” http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-historyhs702a,0,6698943.story (accessed 12 March 2008)
15
Ibid
16
Ibid
17
Newsday, “Dinner with Typhoid Mary,”
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
5
taken to ensure food safety, during a time where a cure for typhoid was unknown, it was
necessary in order to prevent the spread of the dangerous disease.
1906 – The Jungle, Pure Food and Drug Act, Meat Inspection
Act
In 1906, Upton Sinclair published his groundbreaking expose The Jungle, much to
the shock and horror of US citizens.
In the book, Sinclair cited examples of the
conditions in a meat packing plant in Chicago, citing incidents where rats would roam
free in meat grinders, being chopped up with the meat or simply left to roam about it free
to feast and defecate wherever they pleased. After the release of the book, Americans
became severely suspect of the meat industry, and the government responded with the
Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was the first federal law passed to prevent
the transport and sale of adulterated food, enacted under the power of the Interstate
Commerce Clause.18 In the Pure Food and Drug Act, adulterated food is defined as food
“which is combined or packaged with another substance that adversely affects the quality
or strength of the food; is substituted in whole or part by another substance; has had any
essential component removed in whole or part; has been blended, coated, colored, or
stained to conceal damage or inferiority; has had poisonous or harmful additions made to
it; is composed of filthy or decomposed animal or vegetable matter; or is the product of a
diseased animal or an animal that has died other than by slaughtering.”19 This was the
first step in a major overhaul of the food industry brought on by the newfound concern
with food safety.
The Meat Inspection Act, passed along with the Pure Food and Drug Act, set
specific standards for the inspection of meat and meat packing plants. The act required
that all animals pass inspection by the US Drug Administration prior to slaughter, that
18
Law Library – American Law and Legal Information, “Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906,”
http://law.jrank.org/pages/9585/Pure-Food-Drug-Act-1906.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
19
Ibid
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
6
animal carcasses were subject to inspection after slaughter, and that slaughterhouses and
packing plants were subject to federal standards for cleanliness.20 In conjunction with the
Pure Food and Drug Act, the Meat Inspection Act served to placate citizens and further
President Roosevelt’s agenda of improving food quality.
1938 – Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
When the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act passed in 1938, it tied up a few loose
ends left by the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, and effectively
replaced the Pure Food and Drug Act. The act defined food additives as "any substance,
the intended use of which results directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or
otherwise affecting the characteristics of food."21 Aside from defining the term additive,
the act also goes on to define food colorings with the names commonly used today, such
as Yellow No. 5 and Red No. 3.22 Although amended several times, the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act is still in use as a regulation for food, drug and cosmetic production.
1967 – Wholesome Meat Act
The Wholesome Meat Act (WMA) of 1967 came into place in order to improve
existing food regulations. The WMA made a few important changes to existing food
inspection laws, with the most notable described in the following sentences. The WMA
gave the Secretary of Agriculture the power to designate any meat plant as a health
hazard and enforce an immediate closing of the plant.23 The WMA also gave the
Secretary of Agriculture authority over meat warehouses, shippers, cold storage facilities,
and animal food manufacturers.24 The most important regulation included in the WMA,
however, was the section dictating that imported meat undergo the same inspections and
meet the same standards as domestic meat and prevented imports from countries with
20
Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Federal Meat Inspection Act,”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations/FMIA/index.asp (accessed 12 March 2008)
21
United States Food and Drug Administration, “Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm (accessed 12 march 2008)
22
Ibid
23
Tuskegee University Department of Biomedical Research, “Meat Inspection,”
http://compepid.tuskegee.edu/syllabi/pathobiology/pathology/pubhealth/chapter1.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
24
Ibid
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
7
foot and mouth disease outbreaks, commonly known as mad cow disease.25 With these
regulations, the WMA brought food inspection standards up to the standards held today.
2003 – Mad Cow Disease Outbreak
On 23 December 2003, the USDA diagnosed a case of mad cow disease. After the
diagnosis, two dozen countries announced they would no longer import US beef, which
was estimated at a $2.6 billion loss to the US market.26 The USDA responded to the
positive test by recalling 10,410 pounds of beef, but did so as an extreme measure to
ensure that no infected beef be sold, despite the small risk.27 This recent outbreak of mad
cow disease only reinforced the need for further measures to prevent the spread of mad
cow disease, since it is such a danger in the beef industry. The USDA proposed banning
the sales of downer cattle, or cattle than cannot walk, to prevent the spread of mad cow
disease, but this measure has still not been enacted by US law.28
2007 – Topps Meat Company
On 25 September 2007, the Topps Meat Company of Elizabeth, New Jersey issued
the second largest beef recall in US history. The recall was of 21.7 million pounds of
frozen hamburger patties thought to contain E. coli bacteria.29
While only certain
packages with specific serial numbers were infected with the bacteria, consumer concerns
led to an overall recall of all the beef in stores. While the USDA was only responsible
for encouraging a recall, it was criticized for not acting quick enough to cause a recall,
since the majority of infected meat had already been consumed.30 Topps began the recall
after the New York Department of Health linked Topps meat patties to cases of E. coli
infection, and once the department indicated the problem was more widespread than
25
Ibid
Chemical & Engineering News, “Mad Cow Disease Outbreak,”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8201/8201notw4.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
27
Ibid
28
Ibid
29
Fox News, “Topps Meat Co. Shutters Business 6 Days After Second-Largest U.S. Meat Recall,”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299607,00.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
30
Ibid
26
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
8
initially thought, Topps began a total recall of all the beef that could have been infected31
While this case represents a successful recall done in order to prevent the spread of the
disease, it also caused the Topps Meat Company to close its doors, costing eighty-seven
people in the Northern New Jersey area their jobs.32 While the USDA and the FDA are
primarily concerned with the safety of consumers, economic impacts associated with
widespread recalls are an ill effect that can be prevented with better disease prevention
tactics used by both government agencies and meat companies.
Actors and Interests
US Food and Drug Administration
Established by the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is the federal government agency responsible for setting safety
regulations for food, drugs, cosmetics, medical products and a slew of other categories of
products. The FDA is responsible for nearly 80 per cent of food in America today, as the
FDA governs the entire food supply except for meats, which fall under the jurisdiction of
the US Department of Agriculture. Tasked with such a large amount of food products to
inspect and cover, the FDA naturally pushes each year for an enlarged budget. Their role
in protecting all of America from unsafe foods, contaminated with all sorts of virulent
diseases, FDA officials argue, demands adequate funding to attack the problems head-on.
One such problem the FDA guards against is the prevalence of food-borne
illnesses, an issue that causes over 76 million illnesses and five thousand deaths
annually.33 Work to detect contaminated food as early as possible, before it reaches the
shelves, is helping to reduce the number of illnesses and fatalities caused by such germs
and bacteria. Through the efforts of FDA scientists and the countless hours invested in
research, detection of microbial and viral strains infecting food on American markets has
31
Ibid
Ibid
33
FDA, “Keeping the Nation's Food Supply Safe: FDA's Big Job Done Well,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/2cfsan.html, (accessed 14 March 2008)
32
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
9
become more rapid, thus minimizing the outbreak of these illnesses.34 With advanced
methods of analysis also comes the discovery of new bacteria within our food supply: in
the last fifty years, the number of known food-borne pathogens has quintupled.35 Thus,
research to defeat the known threats to Americans’ health within our food supply has also
unearthed a vast number of threats, which require research to understand and conquer on
their own.
America’s population increases by the day, and with it the amount of food
produced, grown, and imported increases daily as well. Food imports, a particularly
dangerous area, have tripled since 1998.36 Importation poses its own set of challenges, as
the FDA must exercise extra caution with food grown or produced from other countries.
Regulations in foreign countries often do not meet the level set in America, sometimes
falling woefully short. Many parts of the world still use pesticides and insecticides that
the US government banned decades ago, growing conditions differ greatly, and sanitation
standards are much higher in the US than elsewhere. Inspecting imported food requires
more time, effort, and labor per capita than domestic food. The rise in imported food,
coupled with a 10 per cent increase in food produced domestically, demands that the
FDA meet the increase with an increase in food inspection. Unfortunately, in this same
ten year period, the number of FDA food safety inspectors dropped by eleven per cent.37
To keep up with the ever-growing job of regulating food, in addition to the vast
amount of other areas the FDA must also regulate, the organization considers it vital to
remain both adequately funded and properly staffed.
Coupled with the ongoing
discovery of new allergens and pathogens residing in everyday food items, the task
before the FDA rises without any foreseeable ebb in sight. The FDA receives a mere 24
34
Ibid
FDA, “Fighting Food-borne Illness: How FDA Helps Keep the Food Supply Safe,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/21foodsaf.html, (accessed 14 March 2008)
36
“Making Food Safe,” The Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-edfood4mar04,1,5726096.story, (accessed 14 March 2008)
37
Ibid
35
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
10
per cent of the budget the federal government allots to food safety inspection. The FDA
considers this unacceptable.
US Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture, established in 1862 by President Lincoln as an
official cabinet within the federal government, governs meats and poultry in America.
Created as a branch of the Department of Agriculture is the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), tasked with overseeing and regulating meats and poultry produced,
imported and ultimately sold within the country. The FSIS goes about inspecting meat
and poultry by dividing the job into federal level and state level inspections. State
inspections, conducted by state agencies, must at least meet the standards established by
the Federal Meats and Poultry Inspections Act, if not surpass them.38 The FSIS provides
upwards of fifty per cent of the inspection causes, and they limit meats that qualify for
state inspection only to goods sold intrastate. Such restrictions serve a practical purpose,
as it prevents companies from bypassing the toughest regulations by getting their meats
inspected in states with the lowest standards, passing those tests, and then shipping their
product to the harder-to-pass states.
This division of inspection roles is necessary to ensure the inspection of most
meats, but it also creates issues with state funding. While the FSIS does guarantee to
assist states with the cost up to fifty per cent, it does not address the problem of the states
themselves. Seeing as how states set how intensive the inspections are, states can save
themselves money by cutting down the costs of the inspections as a whole.39 As the FSIS
guarantees to help pay for inspections, it limits what the states have to spend. Because
this delegation of inspection can allow states to under-fund inspections purposely to save
money, this can cause a reduction in safety standards across the board.
38
Food Safety and Inspection Service, “FSIS State Inspection Programs,” USDA,
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/state_inspection_programs/index.asp, (accessed 14 March 2008)
39
“Making Food Safe,” The Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-edfood4mar04,1,5726096.story, (accessed 14 March 2008)
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
11
The USDA operates in conflict with itself because of its dual roles of consumer
advocate and food industry promoter. Such contradictory jobs inevitably result in one of
the two groups the USDA seeks to assist, the consumer or the producer, getting the
shaft.40
One such area where the problem manifests itself is the confidentiality of
information pertaining to recalls. As the rules currently stand, the USDA deems recall
information exempt from public disclosure because it is confidential between the
organization and the meat and poultry industries.
Facts that fall under this USDA
exemption include the vital knowledge of where recalled meats were distributed.41
Representative Rose DeLauro (D-NH) has proposed legislation requiring the USDA to
disclose to state health departments the exact list of retailers, restaurants and other food
facilities that received shipments of recalled meat.42
Countering such criticism, the USDA stands by its decision to keep such
information confidential and thus away from the public. Distributing to the public a list
of places that, at some point, received meat recalled by the USDA can cause boycotts of
businesses, ultimately harming both them and the economy.
Consumers would opt
against going to a particular restaurant or supermarket because of the fear instilled in
them by the knowledge that they received recalled products. Fear can turn irrational,
keeping consumers away for prolonged periods because of one incident.
After all,
retailers are themselves consumers, as they purchased the products from meat companies
not knowing they bought contaminated goods. Such retailers fear an unfair backlash
from the everyday consumer against their store or restaurant, for they are not at fault for
the meat recall, and thus should not be punished. The USDA is indeed considering a
rules change to relax restrictions on distribution information, but such plans, the
40
Ibid
Marian Gail Brown, “Legislators seek tougher food safety standards,” The Connecticut Post,
http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8533583, (accessed 14 March 2008)
42
Ibid
41
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
12
organization says, will come after an extensive analysis of ways to implement change that
will balance the interests of the consumer, the meat industry and the retailer.43
American Meat Institute
The American Meat Institute (AMI), founded in 1906 is an association of meat
and poultry companies that combine to account for nearly seventy-five per cent of the
meat and poultry industries in America. The AMI promotes the interests of meat and
poultry as a special interest organization operating in Washington.44
Possible Causes
Conflict between the USDA and the FDA
The USDA and the FDA both oversee food regulation and there exists much
confusion over responsibilities and conflict over funding. The FDA ensures the safety of
eighty per cent of food in America, while the USDA oversees the other twenty per cent.
Despite such a disparity in the responsibilities each organization has regarding food
safety inspections, the FDA receives considerably less funding than the USDA does for
that very role.
As determined in a study conducted by the US Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the FDA and USDA combined to account for ninety per
cent of the 1.7 billion dollars spent on food safety activities in 2003.45 The USDA spent
the lion’s share of the total expenditures, accounting for sixty-six per cent of the total
budget, whereas the FDA only spent twenty-four per cent.46 The competition for funding
between all agencies within the federal government is intense, but on the subject of food
safety regulations, there are two agencies vying for money for the same role. The FDA
clearly is responsible for the safety of a far greater amount of food than the USDA but
its’ annual expenditures are dwarfed by the USDA.
43
Ibid
“Mission Statement”, American Meat Institute,
http://www.meatami.com/Content/NavigationMenu/About_AMI/Mission/Mission.htm, (accessed 16 March 2008)
45
Lisa Shames, “Federal Oversight of Food Safety: FDA’s Food Protection Plan Proposes Positive First Steps, but
Capacity to Carry Them Out is Critical”, GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08435t.pdf, (accessed 16 March
2008)
46
Ibid
44
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
13
In addition to concerns over funding battles, the two organizations have oddly
defined, shared jurisdictions that can lead to confusion over who is responsible for what,
ultimately creating holes in the system. For example, the USDA regulates the meat
products that go into the production of processed foods, but after processing, the final
product falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA to regulate.47 This, then, requires constant
communication between the two agencies to ensure that their standards, inspection tactics
and regulations are similar.
Other areas where the two organizations share
responsibilities include the FDA’s responsibility for the safety and regulation of produce,
as the USDA is the arbitrator for discussions whereby produce growers decide on rules
for self-governance.
In this arrangement, the USDA contributes to the regulations
governing the growing of produce, but the FDA must then step in afterwards and regulate
the safety of the produce itself. For the FDA to ensure the safety of produce, it needs to
regulate the rules for the growing of produce. Splitting the responsibility here creates a
situation that can only lead to problems.
Contradictions within the USDA
The USDA has a unique complication inherent in the organization. President
Lincoln established the USDA to ensure the representation of agricultural interests in
America. It was not until many years after the department’s inception that the USDA
took on the role of providing for the safety of meat and poultry. One branch of the
USDA, the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services agency, states its mission as
“[keeping] America's farmers and ranchers in business as they face the uncertainties of
weather and markets.”48 Simultaneously, the FSIS, another agency operating within the
USDA, enumerates its mission thusly: “[ensuring] that the Nation's commercial supply of
meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled, and
47
Ibid
“USDA Mission Areas”, USDA,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=USDA_MISSION_AREAS&parentnav=AGENCI
ES_OFFICES&navtype=RT, (accessed 16 March 2008)
48
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
14
packaged.”49 Thus, the USDA seeks to promote the interests of the food industry and to
protect the consumer against the products manufactured by the food industry. When one
organization attempts to represent both sides, it is inevitable that one side will receive
favorable treatment to the detriment of the other.
Exemplifying the issue with representing both the industry and the consumer, the
USDA chose not to tell the public about the largest meat recall in US history. On 17
February 2008, Hallmark/Westland recalled 143 million pounds of meat.50 This recall
took place because the USDA urged Hallmark/Westland, the producer of the meat, to tell
food producers who had purchased their meat it was contaminated. Neither the meat
producer, the food producers who purchased contaminated meat or the USDA went
public with the information.51
While classified as a Class II recall by the USDA,
meaning that the meat posed a very small risk to human health, consumer advocate
groups were nonetheless outraged that the USDA specifically asked companies to not
notify consumers.52 Such action obviously favors the industry, protecting their profits in
the face of consumer backlash.
49
Ibid
Stephen J. Hedges, “What they didn’t tell you about the recent meat recall,” Seattle Times,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004276452_meat12.html, (accessed 14 March 2008)
51
Ibid
52
Ibid
50
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
15
Works Cited
Brown, Marian Gail. “Legislators seek tougher food safety standards,” The Connecticut
Post, http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8533583, (accessed 14 March
2008)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Food-borne Illness”,
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm#mostcommon (accessed 11 March 2008)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Salmonellosis,”
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis_g.htm#What%20is%
20salmonellosis (accessed 12 March 2008)
Chemical & Engineering News, “Mad Cow Disease Outbreak,”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8201/8201notw4.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
FDA, “Fighting Food-borne Illness: How FDA Helps Keep the Food Supply Safe,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/21foodsaf.html, (accessed 14
March 2008)
FDA, “Keeping the Nation's Food Supply Safe: FDA's Big Job Done Well,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/factsheets/justthefacts/2cfsan.html, (accessed 14
March 2008)
Food Safety and Inspection Service, “FSIS State Inspection Programs,” USDA,
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/state_inspection_programs/index
.asp, (accessed 14 March 2008)
Food and Safety Inspection Service, “Inspection and Grading, What are the Differences?”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Inspection_&_Grading/index.asp (accessed
12 March 2008)
Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Federal Meat Inspection Act,”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations/FMIA/index.asp (accessed 12 March 2008)
Fox News, “Topps Meat Co. Shutters Business 6 Days After Second-Largest U.S. Meat
Recall,” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299607,00.html (accessed 12
March 2008)
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
16
Hedges, Stephen J. “What they didn’t tell you about the recent meat recall,” Seattle
Times,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004276452_meat12.html,
(accessed 14 March 2008)
Illinois Department of Public Health, “Recommended Safe Cooking Temperatures,”
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/fdd/safecooktemp.htm (accessed 11 March 2008)
Law Library – American Law and Legal Information, “Pure Food and Drug Act of
1906,” http://law.jrank.org/pages/9585/Pure-Food-Drug-Act-1906.html (accessed
12 March 2008)
“Making Food Safe,” The Los Angeles Times,
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-edfood4mar04,1,5726096.story, (accessed 14 March 2008)
“Mission Statement”, American Meat Institute,
http://www.meatami.com/Content/NavigationMenu/About_AMI/Mission/Mission.
htm, (accessed 16 March 2008)
National Agricultural Library, “Abraham Lincoln and Agriculture,”
http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/exhibits/lincoln/index.html (accessed 11 March
2008)
Newsday, “Dinner with Typhoid Mary,”
http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-historyhs702a,0,6698943.story (accessed 12 March 2008)
Shames, Lisa. “Federal Oversight of Food Safety: FDA’s Food Protection Plan Proposes
Positive First Steps, but Capacity to Carry Them Out is Critical”, GAO,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08435t.pdf, (accessed 16 March 2008)
Tuskegee University Department of Biomedical Research, “Meat Inspection,”
http://compepid.tuskegee.edu/syllabi/pathobiology/pathology/pubhealth/chapter1.
html (accessed 12 March 2008)
“USDA Mission Areas”, USDA,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=USDA_MISSIO
N_AREAS&parentnav=AGENCIES_OFFICES&navtype=RT, (accessed 16
March 2008)
Rut gers Mo de l Co ngress
17
United States Department of Agriculture, “Food and Nutrition”,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=FOOD_SAFET
Y&parentnav=FOOD_NUTRITION&navtype=RT (accessed 12 March 2008)
United States Food and Drug Administration, “Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,”
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm (accessed 12 march 2008)
University of Louisville, “A Lecture by David V. Cohn,”
http://louisville.edu/library/ekstrom/special/pasteur/cohn.html (accessed 12 March
2008)
“What are Salmonella?” http://www.salmonella.org/info.html (accessed 12 March 2008)
World Health Organization, “Food Safety and Food Born Illness,” March 2007,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/ (accessed 11 March 2008)