<DOC> [109th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:22707.wais] QUESTION: WHAT IS MORE SCRAMBLED THAN AN EGG? ANSWER: THE FEDERAL FOOD INSPECTION SYSTEM ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MAY 17, 2005 __________ Serial No. 109-47 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22-707 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------ CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent) ------ ------ Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ------ ------ CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland Ex Officio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Ron Martinson, Staff Director Chris Barkley, Professional Staff Member Reid Voss, Clerk Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 17, 2005..................................... 1 Statement of: Robinson, Robert A., Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D., Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration; Merle Pierson, Ph.D., Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Jim Jones, Director of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Richard V. Cano, Acting Director, Seafood Inspection Program, National Marine Fisheries Service.......................... 3 Brackett, Robert E....................................... 36 Cano, Richard V.......................................... 87 Jones, Jim............................................... 79 Pierson, Merle........................................... 63 Robinson, Robert A....................................... 3 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Brackett, Robert E., Ph.D., Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, prepared statement of...................................... 39 Cano, Richard V., Acting Director, Seafood Inspection Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, prepared statement of............................................... 89 DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of................ 58 Jones, Jim, Director of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of..... 81 Pierson, Merle, Ph.D., Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of...... 65 Robinson, Robert A., Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of...................................... 7 QUESTION: WHAT IS MORE SCRAMBLED THAN AN EGG? ANSWER: THE FEDERAL FOOD INSPECTION SYSTEM ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Porter, Norton, Cummings, and Van Hollen. Staff present: Ron Martinson, staff director; B. Chad Bungard, deputy staff director/chief counsel; Chris Barkley and Shannon Meade, professional staff members; Reid Voss, legislative assistant/clerk; Patrick Jennings, detail from OPM serving as senior counsel; Mark Stephenson and Tania Shand, minority professional staff members; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Porter. Thank you, everyone, for being here. I appreciate your being with us this afternoon. We are actually going to start the meeting until we get a quorum, and then we will recess and get into the markup, which really should be shortly. But for the element of time and for those that are here, for the balance of the meeting, I'm going to start the issue regarding Federal food inspection, and then we will recess as soon as we have the quorum and go into the markup. So with that, again, thank you for being here and good afternoon. We're going to start by answering the question, what is more scrambled than an egg? The answer is the Federal Food Inspection System. I'd like to let everyone know again, for the record, that we will move into the markup, but this hearing is just about the basic commonsense in finding ways to achieve efficiency and economy for taxpayers. As chairman of the subcommittee, I will continue to look for ways to organize the government in a more effective manner and to do so in an expedited fashion, such as reconstituting Fast Track Authority for agency reorganization proposals. We have chosen to examine the food inspection process today only because of the seemingly nonsensical organizational structure of the inspection process itself. For example, if Congress were to set up an organizational structure today, I hardly believe that we would have the USDA inspect manufacturers of spaghetti with meat sauce, pepperoni pizza, open face meat and poultry sandwiches, corn dogs and beef broth daily and require the FDA to inspect manufacturers of spaghetti without meet sauce, cheese pizzas, close faced, which are traditional meat and poultry sandwiches, bagel dogs and chicken broth once every 5 years. We also would not require school lunches to be inspected twice, once by the USDA and once by the FDA. It is almost too hard to believe, but that's the organizational structure that we have today in the current food inspection system. I'm sure there was a method to this madness at one point in time, but we have to be more efficient and find a more effective way to organize the inspection process. At the hearing this subcommittee held last March, it looked into why the food inspection process has become what may seem like an organizational nightmare. It was uncovered that 10 agencies are now responsible for executing more than 30 laws directing how the Federal Government inspects food. Moreover, the inspection process has become an intricate web of governmental agencies with responsibilities that often overlap one another, as I just cited a few moments ago. So the question then becomes, who is to blame for this? Well, actually, the blame for this organizational problem does not lie primarily with the past organizations, Republicans or Democrats, or with the food industry that has to live with this system. And as a matter of fact, many folks in the food industry would prefer we leave it the way it is. The blame lies primarily with Congress, which has haphazardly passed the laws making the system what it is today throughout the years. It has been a Band-Aided system. Though the organizational problems with the system are deep-seated. It does not let off the hook the agencies charged with inspecting food for improving upon the job that they're doing. I am deeply concerned with the findings uncovered by the Government Accountability Office, which are contained in the report I will release today, entitled, Federal Agencies Should Pursue Opportunities to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage of Resources. The report focuses on the problem of overlap and duplications between the various food inspection agencies. GAO concentrated its investigation on the four agencies with the most food inspection responsibilities, the USDA, the FDA, EPA and National Marine Fisheries Service. As a result of the hearing, GAO has made a number of recommendations for the agency to better operate within the current operation structure. The subcommittee will be examining those recommendations today. One of the more troubling findings in the report, though, reveals that simply between the four agencies represented here today there are 71--yes, 71 memorandum of understanding to keep the agencies coordinating with one another. Of these 71 agreements, GAO recovered that only in seven cases did all signatory agencies know that they were a party to the agreement. This means that in 64 of 71 agreements, one or more agencies were completely unaware that it was responsible for coordinating with another agency on a certain matter. This kind of example does not speak to safety of food. I want to make that clear. We're not here to talk about safety of food, although in the long run, it does have an impact. But we understood that we have one of the best and safest food systems in the world, we are just trying to make it more efficient. Rather, it highlights the need that the Federal Government is using the tax dollars taken from the American people as wisely and efficiently as possible. Anything less than a lean and well organized food inspection process is unacceptable. Regardless of the organizational ideas offered today, I would emphasize at the outset that everyone in this room is in agreement that we want our food supply to be safe, so that's not the issue. I thank our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to the discussion. Again, we are waiting for a quorum, so what I would like to do is ask all those on the panel to please stand, and I'll swear them in at this time. On the first panel today, we're going to hear from Robert Robinson. Mr. Robinson is the Managing Director of Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office. And we're going to hear from Dr. Robert Brackett, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. Welcome. Then we'll hear from Dr. Merle Pierson, Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department Of Agriculture. And then we will be hearing from Mr. Jim Jones, Director of Pesticide Programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And finally, we will hear from Richard Cano, Acting Director of the Seafood Inspection Program at the National Marine Fisheries Service. OK. What I'd like to do is let the record reflect the following. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Would you please be seated. Mr. Robinson, welcome. Thank you for joining us today, you will be recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ROBERT E. BRACKETT, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MERLE PIERSON, PH.D., ACTING UNDERSECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; JIM JONES, DIRECTOR OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND RICHARD V. CANO, ACTING DIRECTOR, SEAFOOD INSPECTION PROGRAM, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to express our views about the Federal food safety's food inspection structure. As you can see in our appendix to our statement, we have been weighing on this and related topics for quite some time. We first called for fundamental restructuring of the system in 1992 when my hair color was decidedly different than it is today. In the more than a decade since then, some important progress has been made in making our food safety system more science based. Of particular note, the agencies have begun requiring companies to adopt the HACCP system to try to prevent contamination before it occurs, rather than simply dealing with it after it has been detected. HACCP shifted a significant share of responsibility for ensuring safe food from government to industry, and there are clear signs the industry has responded. However, the same structural problems and inefficiencies present in 1992 remain today. And in the intervening years, a number of trends have emerged that make the case for restructuring even more compelling today. First, as the Comptroller General pointed out in his 2003 testimony before this subcommittee, our Nation is facing increasingly serious long-term fiscal challenges. We are on an unsustainable fiscal path that, without a change in course, could have future revenues unable to cover much more than interest on the debt just a few decades from now. If we ever could, we probably have reached a point where we can no longer afford a government weighed down by duplicative and overlapping missions and functions. Second, the chorus of voices calling for change is growing. While a number of industry associations we contacted in assembling our report continue to believe that the structural problems are not significant, many other stakeholders are coming to realize that the current structure doesn't meet the commonsense test. In fact, a number of food companies subjected to dual regulation by USDA and FDA told us that the overlaps can be burdensome as they deal with two sets of HACCP requirements and two sets of inspection approaches. In some cases, they even told us of conflicting direction being provided by different inspectors from different agencies. Likewise, the Institute of Medicine, the Consumer Federation of America and the National Commission on the Public Service have now also supported a move to a more consolidated structure. Third, several other countries have moved to a single food safety agency to increase efficiency, to eliminate conflicts of interest and improve the safety of their food supply. As we reported in February, officials in each of the seven developed countries we reviewed believe the overall effect of consolidation has been or is expected to be positive. For example, as the first exhibit to your left shows, the government of Denmark consolidated major food safety functions that were performed by three separate entities, numerous municipalities into a single agency, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. As the second exhibit shows, Canada also consolidated food inspection functions from food agencies into a single Canadian food inspection agency, while placing public health policy and standard setting with Health Canada. Finally, as we pointed out in the report you're releasing today, the overlap and duplication consequences of our current organizational structure are becoming more apparent. Because the key agencies still have jurisdiction over different segments of the food supply, USDA and FDA both conduct overlapping and even duplicative inspections at more than 1,450 domestic food processing facilities that produce multi- ingredient foods or different types of food. In our view, this represents an inefficient use of increasingly scarce government resources. For example, as shown in the third exhibit, a facility that the GAO team visited that produces both meat and seafood products and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of both USDA and FDA, the USDA inspector is there on a daily basis. And because of the physical plant layout, the inspector must walk through an area containing FDA-regulated seafood. However, because FDA regulates seafood, the USDA inspector does not monitor or inspect that section of the plant. As the final exhibit shows, most Federal food safety expenditures involve inspection or enforcement activities. Oddly enough, though, USDA spends about 75 percent of these inspection dollars, even though it is responsible for regulating about 20 percent of the food supply. Conversely, FDA regulates about 80 percent of the food supply, but spends only about 25 percent of these dollars. FDA and the seafood inspection program run by the National Marine Fisheries Service also conduct somewhat overlapping inspections at about 275 domestic seafood facilities. The NMFS program is a volunteer fee-for-service that is not mandated by legislation. However, FDA does not take full account whether NMFS has already inspected a facility when devising its inspection plans. USDA and FDA also both inspect imported foods at U.S. ports of entry, and the agencies also visit foreign countries to perform equivalence exams, but they do so under significantly different authorities. Thus, in 2004, USDA conducted equivalence reviews in 34 countries that supply meat and poultry products to the United States. FDA also sent separate teams to conduct inspections in 6 of these same 34 countries. Finally, USDA and FDA spend millions of dollars each year developing and delivering food inspection training that could easily be unified. Testifying to the cumbersome structure in an effort to reduce duplication of effort, among other objectives, Federal agencies have developed at least 71 interagency agreements. Unfortunately, the agencies are having difficulty trying to make these agreements work because they don't have adequate mechanisms for tracking them; in many cases, couldn't identify that they existed. In other cases, they simply have not been able to implement them effectively on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, we continue to hold the view that we first expressed more than a decade ago, the Federal Food Safety Inspection System is fragmented and based on outdated laws that reduce its effectiveness and efficiency. The millions of foodborne illnesses and thousands of hospitalizations in foodborne disease-related deaths tell us we can be more effective. The duplicative inspections, overlapping training and uneven information-sharing among agencies tell us we can be more efficient. The experiences of seven developed countries that moved forward and consolidated their previously fragmented operations tell us that better operations are possible. And finally, the Nation's growing fiscal imbalance tells us that there is growing urgency to address inefficiencies whenever we find them. With that, let me pause, and I would be anxious to answer questions when the time comes. [The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.029 Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I would like to take this time now to recess our hearing on the food inspection system and open our hearing regarding the markup on H.R. 994, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 1765. [Recess.] Mr. Porter. We will go back to the other hearing, and bring it back into session, and that's the Federal Food Inspection System. Thank you, Mr. Robinson, again for your testimony. And I would now like to ask Robert Brackett, again, Director of Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BRACKETT, PH.D. Mr. Brackett. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman Porter and members of the subcommittee. I am Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role that the HHS plays in the Federal Food Safety System. As has been stated, ensuring the safety of the food supply continues to be a top priority for HHS and the administration, and so I am pleased to be here today with my colleagues from USDA, EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Your letter of invitation mentioned that this hearing will examine the need for reorganizing Federal food safety activities. The current system of interagency coordination is helping to improve the safety of the food supply and will continue to look for new ways to further this coordination. The American food supply continues to be among the safest in the world, and the current Federal Food Safety System is working well. Just last month, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention, in collaboration with FDA and USDA, released a report with preliminary surveillance data that showed important declines in 2004 in foodborne infections due to common pathogens. This report shows that we are achieving significant public health outcomes in the effort to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness to the lowest level possible. FDA is the Federal agency that regulates everything we eat except for meat, poultry and egg products, which are regulated by our partners at USDA. FDA's responsibility also extends to life-food animals and animal feed. You asked about our role in the food inspection system. In fact, FDA has many roles. For example, FDA conducts investigations into foodborne illness outbreaks, along with CDC and our Federal and State partners. And FDA conducts inspections of food manufacturing facilities. We utilize a risk-based approach and expect high-risk facilities with greater frequency than low-risk facilities. We have many contract and partnership agreements with States to assist us with the domestic inspection activities. In addition, FDA works closely with States and local officials on inspections at the retail level. For foreign producers, FDA conducts a limited number of compliance inspections of high-risk food facilities, such as firms that manufacture low-acid can foods or infant formula. FDA also works through the international organization such as Codex Alimentarius to establish international standards. Through this mechanism, we extend science-based inspection of standards worldwide. To manage the ever-increasing volume of imported food shipments, we also utilize risk-management strategies. Through the use of an electronic screening system, FDA is able to concentrate its inspection resources on high-risk shipments while allowing the low-risk shipments to proceed into commerce. FDA personnel conduct examinations and collect and analyze samples as necessary to determine compliance with FDA's food safety requirements. You asked FDA to respond to a recent report by GAO about the use of Federal food safety resources. And we certainly share GAO's interest in finding ways to make FDA more efficient. However, we do not believe the report provides an accurate assessment of how to achieve this. We do not agree with GAO's characterization of what constitutes overlap. In processing establishments, there are no food products that both FDA and USDA regulate. Each agency inspects those products over which it has jurisdiction. The FDA and USDA inspectors have different educational backgrounds, have received different training and have responsibility for different food products and industries. GAO's report cites the inspection of dual jurisdiction establishments, so-called DJEs, as a primary example of overlapping and efficiency. DJEs are facilities that are regulated by both FDA and USDA because the establishment produces food products that fall under each agency's jurisdiction. We do not agree with GAO's emphasis on inspection of these facilities as a way to save resources and achieve efficiencies. DJEs comprise less than 2 percent of the total food processing or manufacturing facilities in the United States, and further, the report did not seem to take into account the fact that more than half of the 1,451 dual jurisdiction facilities are low-risk facilities, such as warehouses, that do not require a high inspection frequency. Thus, the opportunity for achieving efficiencies through leveraging of inspection resources for these facilities is quite small. As noted in the report, FDA and USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service have signed a memorandum of understanding to facilitate the sharing of information about DJEs. This MOU has been successful in enhancing collaborative activities to improve public health protection. To further strengthen this MOU, we have agreed to conduct some additional joint training. We are also following up on GAO's report recommendations to inventory all active interagency agreements and to evaluate and update them as necessary. I would like now to provide some other examples of successful collaborations with our food safety partners. HHS, USDA, EPA and other agencies are working with the Department of Homeland Security to achieve the objectives of homeland security Presidential Directive No.'s 7, 8, and 9, which identify critical infrastructures, improve response planning, and establish a national policy to defend the agriculture and food systems against terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies. DHS serves as the coordinator of the food and agriculture sector, with the FDA and HHS as the lead for the food sector, and the Homeland Security Office and USDA as the lead for the agricultural sector. Today, FDA and FSIS are also announcing a joint proposal to establish a set of general principles for evaluating existing and proposed food standards. General food standards are used to ensure that products sold under particular names have the characteristics expected by consumers. Adherence to the proposed principles will result in more modern standards that will better promote honesty and fair dealing, and will allow for technological advances for food processing. Such technological advances mean enhanced manufacturing efficiency and reduced costs, which could benefit consumers through lower prices and increased product diversity in the marketplace. In conclusion, FDA is working closely with its Federal food safety partners and others to protect the food supply from deliberate and accidental contamination. And as a result of this effective collaboration, the Federal Food Safety System is stronger than ever before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brackett follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.047 Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Brackett. Before we move on, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit testimony from Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro. Any objections? Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.052 Mr. Porter. Next, Dr. Pierson, welcome, Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MERLE PIERSON, PH.D. Mr. Pierson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the important issue of protecting the Nation's food supply. I'm Dr. Merle Pierson, Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The mission of the agency under the Food Safety Inspection Service is to ensure that meat, poultry and egg products prepared for use assembling food are safe, secure, wholesome and accurately labeled. FSIS is charged with administering and enforcing the Federal Meat, Poultry and Egg Products Inspection Acts. Ensuring the safety of meat, poultry and egg products requires a strong infrastructure. FSIS has a work force of over 7,600 inspection personnel in approximately 6,000 federally inspected meat, poultry and egg product plants, import establishments every day. These public health inspection personnel verify each year that 43.6 billion pounds of red meat, 49.2 billion pounds of poultry, and 33.7 billion pounds of liquid egg products, as well as 4.2 billion pounds of imported products comply with the agency's regulatory requirements. Our efforts are paying off, as seen by the decline in foodborne illness over the last 7 years. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported continued reductions in foodborne illnesses in 2004 from E. Coli 157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Camplyobacter, Yersinia, and Salmonella. The CDC contributes the changes in the incidents of these infections in part to the control measures implemented by government and industry leaders, enhanced food safety education efforts and increased attention by consumer groups and the media. Through close cooperation, communication and coordination, Federal agencies and others do work effectively together to ensure a safe and secure food supply. As a partner in the U.S. food safety effort, Food Safety Inspection Service strives to maintain a strong working relationship with its sister public health agencies. We appreciate the GAO's efforts in producing their March 2005 report on what they call overlaps in the Federal Food Safety System. However, I am concerned with any assessment that oversimplifies the food safety regulatory functions of FSIS and FDA, as well as others. And it is not clear on the inherent complexities and differences in our work. It is important to recognize that while FSIS and FDA inspection activities may seem similar in some cases, there are essential differences due to their authorities and responsibilities. I want to point out that considering what GAO describes as jurisdictional overlap between FSIS and FDA, particularly with regard to dual jurisdiction establishments, the amount of food products and number of establishments that fall within these dual jurisdiction establishments is small compared to what the two agencies regulate independently. Another topic the GAO report dealt with, the joint training: Both FSIS and FDA HAPCC and sanitation is important aspects of the regulations, and there are certain similarities in hazards and their controls. However, in the broader context, specific food safety hazards and sanitary approaches differ greatly by product, thus necessitating differences in provisions in how the rules are applied. FSIS's HACCP regulations apply to all meat and poultry products. FDA has two of its inspected commodities, seafood and juices, under mandatory HACCP. FSIS has experienced considerable change over the past few years with the adoption of a HACCP-based regulatory system, an implementation of policies that have worked to provide a significant reduction in foodborne illness. It is essential that the agency's resources be effectively directed toward those areas of greatest risk and not be diverted to efforts that have little potential for improving public health. We look forward to working with Congress, GAO and our food safety partners to continue the best we can to make our Nation's food supply the safest in the world. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pierson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.066 Mr. Porter. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate it. Thank you, Doctor. Now we will hear from Jim Jones, Director of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. You are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JIM JONES Mr. Jones. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Jim Jones, and I serve as the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss EPA's role in food safety and how we coordinate with other Federal agencies on this important topic. EPA's main food safety responsibility is to regulate pesticides, including setting health-based standards for pesticides use in food production, and ensuring our decisions promote the protection of public health and the environment. The EPA protects public health through the registration or licensing of pesticides prior to their marketing and use in the United States under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as well as setting and reevaluating tolerances or legal maximum residue levels under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This requires use of a scientifically sound risk assessment process to consider the potential risks of pesticide use not only to human health, but to the environment as well. Registration tolerances will be granted only if EPA determines that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to the pesticide residues in food and the use of the pesticide will not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In addition to pesticides, EPA also works closely with FDA on the development and publication of National Fish Advisories for fish and shellfish. While EPA is responsible for establishing pesticide tolerances during the registration process, FDA and USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service enforce these tolerances. If pesticide residues on food or feed exceed the tolerance, or if no tolerance exists for such pesticide residues, the food or feed would be subject to regulatory action. EPA actively cooperates and collaborates with FDA and FSIS regarding tolerance levels for pesticide residues on both domestically produced and imported foods. Some of the data EPA uses when establishing tolerances are generated through interagency agreements with USDA, FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These agreements provide valuable information related to food consumption patterns, pesticide use and expected levels of pesticide residues once food products actually reach the consumer. The Agency is also partner to a number of agreements in areas such as training for agricultural workers, providing alternatives to the use of pesticides and coordinating work on pesticide residues. As mentioned by Dr. Brackett, EPA is collaborating with other food safety agencies, including FDA and USDA and the Department of Homeland Security on a number of initiatives to protect the Nation's food supply from natural, unintended or malicious threats. In closing, EPA is committed to continuing to work with our Federal partners, including FDA, USDA and others, to ensure that the United States maintains its well-earned reputation for protecting the safety of our Nation's food supply. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Jones. We appreciate that. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.072 Mr. Porter. Next we have Richard Cano, Acting Director of Seafood Inspection Program, National Marine Fisheries Services. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here. STATEMENT OF RICHARD V. CANO Mr. Cano. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak on the GAO report, Oversight of Food Safety Activities. I am Richard Cano, Acting Director of the Seafood Inspection Program of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. My testimony today will provide a brief description of the Seafood Inspection Program and comment on the GAO report. NOAA oversees the fishery management in the United States. Through the delegated authority of both the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, NOAA provides voluntary seafood inspection programs on a fee- for-service basis. The NOAA Seafood Inspection Program offers a variety of professional inspection services, including vessel and plant sanitation, product inspection, laboratory analysis, training and consultation. These activities ensure that products from firms participating in the NOAA Seafood Inspection Program comply with all applicable Federal regulations. Our inspections, both in the United States and in other countries, examine facility conditions, personnel practices and safety and effectiveness of protocols. To ensure safe and properly labeled products, our evaluation considers both the risks associated with the product and the manufacturing process. We inspect products directly at the facility and by taking random samples from warehouses. NOAA also certifies products by periodically monitoring written industry control systems to ensure facilities are meeting their responsibilities. For example, we use Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point [HACCP], techniques that focus on hazard identification, problem prevention and corrective actions taken by industry to produce complying products. By identifying and monitoring control points in the process, our HACCP-based program helps ensure that requirements such as proper labeling and quality attributes are met, in addition to safety. In 1974, NOAA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services recognizing our agencies' related responsibilities. This agreement is designed to outline a working relationship in the public interest to enable each agency to discharge as effectively as possible its responsibilities related to the inspection and standardization activities for fishery products. In general, this agreement outlines requirements regarding adulterated and misbranded products, how best to maximize resources, and the need for effective communication between the agencies. The most notable accomplishment under this agreement has been in the area of training. NOAA's inspection staff has benefited from FDA's willingness to provide access to their online training modules. Since January 2003, NOAA personnel have completed approximately 9,100, a combined employee total, of the FDA online courses. In addition, most NOAA workshops on sensory evaluation of fishery products are jointly instructed by both NOAA and FDA personnel, and NOAA provides an instructor to assist FDA in retail training courses. However, both the FDA and NOAA believe this agreement, which is now more than 30 years old, needs to be assessed in the light of changing roles and responsibilities, and we have been in discussions with FDA on this. Both industry and other agencies use the NOAA Seafood Inspection Program to ensure that fishery products procured and distributed comply with regulatory requirements, purchasing specifications and consumer expectations. As the GAO report outlined, several agencies are involved in food safety oversight. In general, we believe the report does a fair and thorough job of describing the major food safety activities at NOAA. As the GAO report outlines, in fiscal year 2003, of the $1.7 billion spent on food safety-related activities, NOAA spent just under $22 million, only approximately 1 percent of the total expenditure. The GAO report made several recommendations, and I will focus on those directly relevant to NOAA. As I mentioned earlier, the FDA and NOAA have an interagency agreement. We agree with the GAO recommendation for FDA and NOAA to ensure the implementation of this agreement, and we will continue to work with the appropriate components of FDA in order to do this. In addition, the report recommends that the leaders of each of the agencies discussed in the report identify and inventory all active interagency food safety-related agreements, evaluate the need for these agreements and, where necessary, update the agreements to reflect recent legislative changes, technological advances and current needs. We agree with this recommendation and will establish an inventory of active, interagency, food- related agreements on which NOAA is a signatory. In addition, NOAA will contact the applicable agencies associated with food safety-related agreements whenever NOAA believes an agreement should be revised. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to speak about our Seafood Inspection Program and the recommendations in the GAO report. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Cano. I appreciate that. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cano follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.075 Mr. Porter. I would like to start by asking a question to all of you and would like a response. In the GAO's report, they identified over 71 memoranda of understanding, MOUs, between the four agencies present today. Unbelievably, in only seven cases do all agencies party to an agreement identify that they were a part of such an MOU. This means in 64 of 71 cases, one or more agencies had no idea they were part of an agreement. How would you explain this? We will start with Mr. Brackett. Mr. Brackett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of these MOUs actually were written for specific issues at the time. Many of them were also written at the local level. These were meant to be operational, and in some cases where the issue in the past may no longer be applicable, but they were never taken off the books, consequently, what FDA is doing is actually doing the inventory as was suggested by GAO, looking through our MOUs, revising them if necessary, sunsetting those that don't apply, and perhaps leaving those alone that are working well. Mr. Pierson. We also look at the MOUs in a similar fashion to which Dr. Brackett has just commented on. These have evolved over the years. If you notice, some of these go back into the 1970's and 1980's and the like. We certainly agree that they do deserve review. FSIS certainly is willing to take a look at those MOUs that apply to them and see whether or not we should revise them or sunset them or whatever is appropriate for the MOUs. MOUs have served a very, very important purpose for us in many cases, and I just think of one now, for instance, with the Public Health Service. We have an MOU with them relative to members of the Public Health Service to become part of our Food Safety Inspection Service, and we have a number of physicians and veterinarians who are uniformed and work for us. For example, our administrator of our Office of Public Health Science is a physician from the Public Health Service, and he is over there in part because of this MOU that was created. So they do serve a very useful purpose, but, yes, historically the ones that are there need to be reviewed, and we will be doing that. Thank you. Mr. Jones. I would agree with my colleagues on some of the reasons why these MOUs have not been tracked as aggressively as they should have been. Many of them at the Agency, the EPA, are over 30 years old. We have now identified a tracking system to make sure we have in front of us all the existing MOUs, and we will be going back to look at them for their relevance. Some of them may be sunsetted and some of them, updated. Mr. Cano. As I mentioned, we are intending to establish an inventory and to followup on any of the MOUs that NOAA is a signatory to and that appear to need revision. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a quick summary comment? Based on my 32 years of experience doing this kind of work, any system that requires, at least--and I emphasize, at least-- 71 interagency agreements to function is a system built for problems. People retire. Agreements that are made on the ground are based on human relations. Those things change over time. Pretty soon, as we discovered in this particular case, folks drift away and agreements are forgotten or not aggressively implemented. The whole system that begs for this volume of interagency agreement is a system that is severely handicapped, in our opinion. Mr. Porter. It seems to me that these MOUs were the basis for cooperation, supposed cooperation. I know, Mr. Brackett, you mentioned they were for local operational purposes. Can you expand upon that a little more? Mr. Brackett. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Many of these had very specific purposes. In one that we have, for instance, with the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it was specifically designed for information sharing, particularly at the district level. That one actually called for a reassessment after 1 year, which was done. It was not reassessed after that because the MOU didn't request that. But that particular operational MOU has continued on, and it has been one of the more successful operational MOUs we have had, as sort of evidenced by many of the joint enforcement actions it has prompted. Mr. Porter. Thank you. Mr. Marchant, do you have any questions? Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The administration has put forth a proposal for results commissions which would examine sectors of the government in need of reform and issued recommendations for reorganization. Under the proposal, Congress would vote the recommendation up or down without amendment. What is each of your opinions on promoting such a fast track reorganization legislation to solve these problems we are talking about today? Mr. Brackett. Thank you, Mr. Marchant. I am not in a position really to state with any authority what reorganization proposals the administration would contemplate, referring to commissions for consideration, but I am certain the administration is not currently contemplating a commission that would consider reorganization of the food safety agencies at this point. Mr. Marchant. Mr. Pierson. Mr. Pierson. Yes. Certainly we are supportive of any effort where we can better address public health. That is our baseline, is effectively addressing public health. However, without knowing all the details, etc., of what is proposed and what will finally transpire, it is very, very difficult to comment specifically on that. But I might say that the White House has established a Policy Coordinating Committee, led by the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council, to look into the issue of a single food safety agency. I believe this was in 2002. The Policy Coordinating Committee did conclude that the goals of the administration are better advanced through enhanced interagency coordination, rather than through the development of legislation to create a single food safety agency; and that is the current position of this administration. We feel that we have worked very effectively together, and I think the outcomes, as seen, for example, by CDC, speak very loudly to the success of effectively addressing food safety and assuring public health. Mr. Marchant. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones. Yes. Similar to my colleagues, I don't feel like I am in a position to speak directly to the question related to the results commission. Mr. Cano. Similarly, I am not prepared to comment on that. Mr. Marchant. You have recommended that all agencies coordinate better when evaluating the food inspection system in foreign countries. How do you think that this can be done in the most effective and useful way for all the agencies? Mr. Robinson. Well, Mr. Marchant, I think we come back to where we have been for quite some time, that a consolidated enterprise is the best way to proceed. A single food safety agency that is independent, free of inherent conflicts of interest, able to move resources about, to ensure two delegations from two different agencies are in the same country in the same year, evaluating essentially the same kinds of things, is the way to go. Again, systems built on trying to make interagency agreements function are suboptimal by their definition, in our opinion. Mr. Marchant. Can you tell me, are the agencies self- funded? Do the companies that you inspect the food of pay the fees that fund the agencies? Mr. Robinson. I will let the administration witnesses speak for their own agencies, but in general, this is about--at least in the last year we had complete data, about $1.7 billion in appropriated funds were applied here. NIMS essentially operates their enterprise on a fee-for-service basis, so they don't receive a great deal of appropriated funds to conduct their activities. They are done on a fee-for-service basis. The rest of the agencies operate with appropriated funds, with the exception of FSIS line inspectors; when they go into overtime mode, the companies pay for the overtime. But the regular tours of duty are paid for out of appropriated funds. Mr. Marchant. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Actually, I have a question for Dr. Pierson and Dr. Brackett regarding the cheese pizzas. You think it makes the most economically and efficient sense to require the USDA to inspect pepperoni pizzas and require the FDA to inspect cheese pizzas? Actually, both of you. Mr. Pierson. Certainly. This example has been used time and time again as something where there appear to be very serious, very large problems, discrepancies, etc. Let me point out, like Dr. Brackett pointed out, first of all, that these dual-jurisdiction establishments amount to a very, very low percentage of volume and numbers of establishments that we are dealing with. The vast bulk of our inspection system deals strictly with meat, poultry and egg products, not dual-jurisdiction establishments. Our inspectors are required to be present daily by statute. They are in these operations daily, where you would find meat and poultry-topped products. We do have--through our MOU, we feel the flexibility that if FSIS sees or perceives something that is out of line, we can contact our colleagues at FDA and inform them of a situation that is out of line or not appropriate or meeting what we feel would be, potentially, regulatory requirements. Certainly this type of thing should be given consideration. For example, the meat and poultry that goes on the pizzas has already been federally inspected and passed, and we feel that these sorts of products are, to us, low-risk products. Mr. Porter. Thank you. Mr. Brackett. Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Pierson said, many of these sorts of confusing products are very small in comparison to the rest of the food that we regulate, but nevertheless, they have evolved over the years for numerous reasons, and sometimes they may confuse some people. We have discussed with our partners at FSIS, and will continue to discuss, ways that we can clarify the jurisdiction; and at some point in the future we would hope that we could also provide this to the public for input also to see if we can clarify better. Mr. Porter. It seems to me this has been a problem for a decade or more. I guess, to followup on your answer, or partial answer, to my question, I have outlined five or six, maybe seven different areas of duplication. Why haven't you done something about that? Why haven't you taken the initiative to correct and create a more efficient program and more economical program for the American people? Is it something not important, so you allow it to continue, or am I missing something here? Mr. Pierson. First of all, we are very concerned about the resources and how we effectively apply those resources. We feel that we do a pretty good job of that in, again, effectively applying one to better provide protection, public health protection. There are management issues that we do in fact continually address. There are just a number of issues that we do constantly sort out of how we can better coordinate, cooperate in terms of our effectivenesses and efficiencies. I disagree with GAO's previous reports that there is this matrix that has been evolving. And certainly we do not have the instantaneous solution, but we are giving these, I think, due consideration. Mr. Brackett. Well, Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to point out is, again, there are no foods that are inspected duplicatively by both FSIS and USDA. We inspect those ingredients or those foods for which we have statutory authority, and that is the reason that is set up that way. But, nevertheless, there are a number of foods, such as those that you have mentioned, where the jurisdiction may not be as clear to the outside. But, nevertheless, one or the other of us is inspecting those, is making sure that they are safe; and of course, in our minds, what is of foremost importance is public health. Mr. Porter. I appreciate that everyone in this room believes everything is for the health of the American people. I think that it is important to state it again, and I appreciate hearing it. But, again, for over a decade we have been seeing some distinctions between the two different agencies, but yet you have not taken steps to correct some of these areas. With the state of the budget--and I would expect, I think I heard it today, some of you need additional funds for operations; and if I haven't heard it today, I hear it most every day from different Federal agencies, that they are underfunded. Yet, FDA does closed-face meat sandwiches, USDA does open- face meat sandwiches. FDA does the frozen pizza, and USDA does the pepperoni. FDA does hot dogs on a roll and the USDA does hot dogs on a pastry dough. FDA does beef soup and USDA does chicken soup. FDA does chicken broth, but USDA does beef broth. It is very difficult for me to tell my constituents that we are running these agencies in an efficient manner. I appreciate you have done things this way and--for whatever reason, but the reason we are here today is you haven't taken steps to correct some of these problems. I guess, Dr. Brackett, I want to ask you one more question and then move on. Do you think there is room for improvement in the organizational structure? Mr. Brackett. Well, in each agency, I think we continually look at the organizational structure to find out the best and most efficient way to use our resources that we have. So I think there is always room for improvement, and I think we are always looking for ways to improve what we do. Mr. Porter. What would you suggest for organizational reforms as we move into the future? You are the expert. We are Members of Congress and, of course, trying to take all the information we can and come up with some possible solutions. What would you suggest needs to be done to help improve the efficiency and performance of your agency? Mr. Brackett. Well, I think the main thing is that the two agencies, regardless of the structure, are built upon what we consider to be very strong food safety systems. That is the reason for our being, and anything that would change the structure would have to be looked at to see if it affected that. That would include such things as maybe a Farm to Table approach. The organization has to address that. It has to address the proper amount of outreach to the consumers, as well as to the regulated industry and the amount of research needed to back up science-based decisions, which are based on risk assessments. It would also include the proper funding, surveillance and reporting back, so that we knew that what we were doing is efficient. Any kind of organizational change would have to be looked at with that in mind, and also so that we would still be in harmony with our legislative directives. Mr. Porter. Dr. Pierson. Mr. Pierson. Yes, we can, and we have created organizational charts of new vintages and looked at them and said, oh, we will do better under this structure and that structure. I know when I first came in the under secretary's office, one of the first thing we did was to do some reorganization at FSIS. One can do that. But I think the fundamental, important concept here is, regardless of whether or not you are in FSIS, FDA, EPA or combinations thereof, you have to have cooperation and communication and coordination, and, to me, that is the key to moving forward. One of the examples that I think is very appropriate is the cooperation, coordination and communication that occurred in addressing the BSE situation here in the United States. Through cooperative efforts of a number of agencies, we were able to provide consumers with immediate assurance of the safety of our beef supply and to coordinate very, very tireless efforts to reopen markets. We are very hopeful that is going to happen. But it required a tremendous amount of coordination between agencies within USDA, with FDA and many others--the State Department, USTR, etc. So it is that coordination, I think, that is just so key and so essential. If we act as stovepipes regardless of our structure, we are not going to get ahead. We have to work together. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, may I weigh in? Mr. Porter. Yes, but I want to comment first. I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately, I don't think you answered the question. I would agree that we need more cooperation, and there is no question we need more coordination. But what specific organizational reforms do you think are needed? Again, yes, we need more coordination and more cooperation. But beyond those good political terms, what do you suggest specifically be done, Doctor? Mr. Pierson. Well, I think at this point for me to sit here and provide some type of structure without working with my colleagues and others at USDA and the like, you know, without having that coordinated effort to give you a distinct answer in terms of representing USDA, I think that would be inappropriate for me. Mr. Porter. Isn't that your job? I am sorry, isn't this your responsibility? Mr. Pierson. Yes. Well, I am Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety in USDA, correct. Mr. Porter. So your answer today is cooperation and coordination? Mr. Pierson. I think that is done very effectively. If we talk about any type of restructuring, I think it has to be through a collaborative effort to come out with a plan; and for me, right now, to lay out a plan, I think I would have a lot of people that I would be having to have further discussions with. I think it is quite appropriate for me to work with others in moving forward, if we were to discuss such things. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson. I was going to weigh in relative to the BSE issue. We have done work on BSE, and I think it speaks to this exact point you are raising here, that we pointed out situations in our work where FDA, who had identified potentially contaminated feed and didn't inform USDA of those events and potentially--fortunately, it didn't turn out-- potentially put the system at risk. FDA's own acting counsel, I think, has referred to the structure between FDA and USDA as hampering Federal abilities to deal with this issue. I also want to come back to your opening statement that the problems here are unfortunately rooted in statute. The various systems are directed largely by statute, and the statutes direct that USDA has to have an inspector at every plant looking at every carcass, carcass by carcass by carcass. Those resources can't be shifted to other higher priority areas. We now know that the food safety threats are seafood first, fruits and vegetables second, eggs third, and meat and poultry fourth. The resources by statute are heavily directed toward the fourth priority and not priorities one through three. That is not something that the agencies can do a heck of a lot about. They are directed by statutes to do certain things the way they are doing them now. Mr. Porter. Mr. Robinson, I partially agree, but partially disagree. Yes, it is directed by statute, but I would hope that the agencies wouldn't expect all the statutes to come out of this body. I would expect that in their role and responsibilities, they would bring forward ideas and suggestions, because if they don't, then we are going to pass legislation that may well be another Band-Aid. I guess I agree with you, but we should take it a step further. These are the experts, and we would hope in the future that they would bring forward their own, and possibly they have before my tenure. But I think your point is well taken. Mr. Robinson. We recommended they do just that. Obviously, I think you are hearing today there is no likelihood of that occurring any time soon. Mr. Porter. I won't repeat that, but I will concur. I think that is part of the problem. What I would like to do is say thank you to the panel for being here, for your testimony. There may well be followup questions. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions for the hearing record, and that any answers provided by the witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and the materials referred to by the Members and witnesses may be included in the hearing record and that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered. Again, I want to say, thank you all. I appreciate that we have one of the best systems in the world. We are here today just trying to make it a little bit better. Thank you all for being here, and the meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2707.102 <all>