Safety at the Speed of Life- Blog 4

As a continuation of my blog series on the safety of our product imports, I want to illustrate the change in our basic strategy by talking about the shrimp business. I was in Vietnam and Central America recently— both are big producers and exporters of shrimp. I met with representatives of the shrimp industry in both places.

We talked about the impact on their product when a shipment gets detained at our border. Delays create huge costs and often disrupt or even close affected businesses.

Members of the shrimp industry independently decided that they needed to develop a set of quality and safety standards, and a way to verify compliance with those standards. They did this because their consumers needed to know that their products were safe and of high quality. They developed a formal, voluntary collaboration that produced a set of industry standards and certification process.

A centerpiece of our new strategy is to encourage, leverage, and build upon such voluntary third-party efforts. We are not inventing a new concept. It already exists. And it works.

We observed independent certification being used in many sectors of the import world. Until now, we have not integrated this capacity for improvement into our regulatory responsibility. This needs to be a government-wide strategy; ultimately, it should apply to all product lines.

Since FDA has responsibility for the safety of a significant share of our imports, I would like to outline the way we are transforming the Food and Drug Administration to harness the power of this new vision.

In the future, products from those firms that have standards and certification processes that we trust will be given expedited entry and access to U.S. consumers. The FDA will be freed to focus its enforcement resources on those suppliers that don’t have certified products. FDA is establishing a pilot with the shrimp industry to help learn how to evaluate third-party certification programs, and implement them in the field.

So we are saying clearly: “We want you to have access to American consumer markets — we want to have access to yours. To do so, you need to meet American standards of quality and safety. If you can demonstrate through a process we trust, that your products meet the safety standards that we have mutually agreed upon, we’ll be your partners in speed.”

Can you see the linkage that connects speed and safety?

Speed is accomplished when trust has been established. Trust happens only with complete transparency. Transparency requires standards, and standards require collaboration.

This is a key point — a change born of the global market — collaboration is the new frontier of human productivity. I believe learning better collaborative skills is a requirement for success in this century. It is a proven method of solving complex problems, and it’s hard work. I want to write more about the importance of collaboration with other governments around safety in a global market, and I will pick up here in my next entry.

Comments

regarding the proposed legislation to redefine contraception as abortion: It is easy to say (as one person noted above) that all hormonal contraceptive methods are actually causing abortion, yet the science says this is not true. Progesterone and estrogen-based pills work by preventing ovulation. this means that a woman taking the pill keeps her eggs in her ovaries, rather than releasing them into the 'womb'. In addition, many mechanical methods (for example, condoms) do not cause abortion, but instead prevent conception by preventing sperm from meeting the egg. if sperm and egg do not unite, there is no human being to abort. it would be wise if individuals would check their scientific facts before making incorrect comments. The scientific findings on how contraceptive pills work show that they are definitely NOT abortive, but rather preventative.

Further, it is time that our government stops meddling with medicine, and with the rights of individuals to plan their families. The proposed legislation (to redefine contraception as abortion) cannot be seen by any intelligent thoughtful individual as anything but an attempt to control women and their behavior. I cannot believe that a person in the position of secretary of health can possibly simply have 'no comment'.

having read the comments posted thus far, and noting that they are heavily biased in favor of this legislation, and knowing that americans are nearly unanimously opposed to it,I presume that my comment will be refused by the moderator and not posted. therefore I will also send it to several newspapers, telling them that it was posted and asking them to see if this rather polite opposing post ever shows up on this blog.

Posted by: Dr Polly Matzinger | August 06, 2008 at 08:19 AM

To promote the extremely foolish idea that birth control is in any way equivalent to abortion, from either a moral or a medical point of consideration, is to simultaneously promote poor health practices, irresponsible family planning, and wanton ignorance amongst and through your constituency and the American public as a whole. America is facing complex and increasingly critical problems with our education, economic, and health care systems: in failing to acknowledge the need for safe, accessible, and medically-informed family planning, the most vehement anti-birth-control activists are set to deal a powerful blow against effective health care for the majority; similarly, these same radicals mock the scientific and medical community iby promoting a medical policy rooted in religious ideology and - specifically - Christian moralism, and are setting the stage for an America left even further behind other developed and developing nations in the ability to offer relevant and effective scientific education, research and development, and health care.

As a spiritual leader, I urge you to meditate upon the true meaning of freedom, and the differences between choice and coercion, and thereby reconsider your stance on birth control. As a citizen, I urge you to refrain from confusing personal morality with public ethics; the former is a personal guide and experience unfit to become legislation, the latter - if it is to be true and effective - must be based in rationality and empiricism, lest it guide us into the darkness of fascism and theocracy.

Posted by: Reverend Patrick Wallace | August 06, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Secretary Leavitt
The administration's policy of classifying birth control as abortion is fallacious and flies in the face of civil liberty as well as sound population control. Women and families must be able to control their fertility and child bearing if they are to ensure that they can provide responsible levels of sustenance and care for their children. If you want a policy that all sexual intercourse shall have the potential of causing pregnancy, I suggest you move to the Vatican.

Posted by: Camille Hall | August 06, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Regarding Planned Parenthood. PLEASE respond to Swenson's question and growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. Planned Parenthood provides MANY health care services for both women and men at an affordable cost at a time in our country when many are without insurance or reasonable healthcare. I personally use their services as a means to have long term relationship and records as so often times companies merge, change and with those merges and changes so does the insurance plans, coverage and doctors associated with each network. The company I once worked for had several merges in consecutive years and due to the insurance changes it was impossible to see the same doctor. Planned Parenthood provides me with excellent services and a place where I know I have a long term care history report. Cutting the services of these facilities both in the US and Worldwide at a time when there are virus epidemics and unaffordable healthcare would be a tragedy.

Posted by: Terri | August 06, 2008 at 05:42 PM

I think that you and the Bush Administration have a lot of nerve, trying to keep women down by making birth control abortion. Birth control is pregnancy prevention, NOT abortion. Your flip no comment when asked if 98% percent of women who use birth control, are they having abortions was very telling. You have no right to tell women that they cannot use or have access to contreception. This won't stand, and you and your small minded religious nut zealots look like fools. When Barack is president, I think that you will have a LOT of women to thank, in response to your small minded, anti-women policies.

Posted by: Janie | August 06, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Would you please provide a bill number or a url for the letter for this regulation? I could not find a US Congressman by the name of Dave Feldon, though I did find Lincoln Davis.
I am a librarian and a student contacted me to find this information.

Thank you in advance.
Chris

Posted by: Chris Chamness | August 12, 2008 at 04:15 PM