Meeting
Summary
Dear Colleague:
On behalf of all the staff at the Food and Drug Administration, I want
to thank you and offer congratulations on a most successful meeting in
Kansas City. This truly was an "historic" gathering. The theme, "Meeting
Challenges Together" aptly captured the spirit of collaboration and
trust that was evident throughout the event, as everyone looked for constructive
ways to strengthen the existing food safety system. Your dedication and
hard work during those three days were an inspiration to all of us!
Attached are a summary of the meeting and an executive summary. We are
also providing you with the E-mail addresses of the attendees as promised.
Highlights of the meeting's results are also listed below. In addition
to this summary, we will be sending to you a computer disc in text format
containing the complete texts of the items listed in the appendix to
the summary. This will take about three weeks to complete the duplication
process. You are encouraged to share these items freely with your colleagues.
Periodic progress reports will be forthcoming.
As always, we welcome comments, suggestions and offers of help. Please
direct them to Richard Barnes, Director, Division of Federal State Relations,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, HFC-150, Food and Drug Administration,
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12-07, Rockville, Maryland 20857, phone 301-827-6906,
fax 301-443-2143, E-mail rbarnes@ora.fda.gov.
Now comes the hard work of developing the details of how we are going
to fashion and implement fully integrated federal, state and local food
safety activities on a national basis. Highlights of your recommendations
and the next steps following the Kansas City meeting include:
- Work groups will be established to develop the ideas presented in
Kansas City. They will consist of local, state and federal officials,
perhaps convening in conjunction with regional meetings and by conference
calls over the next 6 months. The development of next steps for implementation
will be part of those deliberations.
- Five work groups will be established to contribute to the development
of a plan for both outbreak coordination and an integrated food safety
system:
- Roles and Responsibilities; Capacity and Resource Needs
- Coordinating Outbreak Responses and Investigations
- Data Sharing and Collection
- Communication
- Minimum Uniform Standards
- Education, training, technology research and development needs will
be integral parts of each work group's deliberations.
- A coordinating body will be formed to facilitate and implement the
work group recommendations. Membership will be determined after review
and consideration of several suggestions from the Kansas City meeting
participants.
- Public meetings with other constituencies, industry and consumer
organizations will be scheduled over the next 6 months to seek their
input.
- Continued efforts to involve others at all levels will be needed
to make our vision a reality.
We share your enthusiasm and excitement for this bold, but necessary,
effort, as we work together to fulfill our core public health mission
to the American consumer.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph A. Levitt
Director
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition |
Attachment
Meeting Summary
Summary of Federal-State Meeting:
"Meeting Challenges Together"
Kansas City, Missouri
September 15-17, 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 15 - 17, 1998, local, state and federal officials met in
Kansas City, Missouri to develop recommendations and implementation plans
for improving the coordination of foodborne disease outbreak investigations
and responses and for an integrated food safety system encompassing all
levels of government. Hosted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
this meeting was attended by state and local officials from agriculture
and health departments as well as state laboratories, including state
epidemiologists and regulatory officials representing all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Representatives from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
also participated in this meeting.
The theme of the meeting, MEETING CHALLENGES TOGETHER, centered on the
need for all levels of government to better utilize their resources in
a coordinated fashion from farm-to-table. Attendees constructed visions
of a successful food safety system in the year 2005, identified current
obstacles to achieving that vision, and proposed action items for assignment
to work groups after the meeting.
Local, state and federal agencies sometimes respond to foodborne illness
outbreaks independently of one another. Seemingly routine local investigations
can develop into statewide, national or even international emergencies
in a matter of hours or days. Work groups identified obstacles and developed
recommendations to address issues including the coordination of communication
and media activities, the collection and analysis of data, resource issues,
and laboratory analyses.
An integrated food safety inspection system is needed for improved coordination
and to more effectively utilize the combined resources of local, state
and federal agencies. These resources, when combined, are extensive but
could be more effectively planned and applied to the challenges of regulating
the food supply. The attendees recommended a coordinating body and work
groups, composed of federal, state and local government members, should
be established to carry forward action items and recommendations from
this meeting. Issues for work groups to resolve include: roles and responsibilities;
capacity and resource needs; communication; data collection and sharing;
minimum uniform standards; education and training; and technology, research
and development.
Other action items suggested as "Next Steps" included: establishing
the coordinating body and work groups; and obtaining input from non-governmental
groups including consumers, industry and academia.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 15 - 17, 1998, 170 local, state and federal officials met
in Kansas City, Missouri to develop recommendations and implementation
plans for improving the coordination of foodborne disease outbreak investigations
and response and for an integrated food safety inspection system encompassing
all levels of government.
Hosted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the historic meeting
was attended by 110 state and local officials from agriculture and health
departments as well as state laboratories, including state epidemiologists
and regulatory officials from all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia.
The contingent of Federal participants included sixty officials from:
FDA's district and regional offices and headquarters' Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN),
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and Office of Chief Counsel; the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and representatives from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS).
The theme of the meeting, MEETING CHALLENGES TOGETHER, centered around
the need for all levels of government to better coordinate use of their
respective resources in two main areas: 1) investigating and responding
to foodborne disease outbreaks and 2) integrating food safety activities
from farm to table. Attendees were assigned to work groups that developed
a series of recommendations that would encompass all levels of government.
Each group was asked to construct a vision of a successful effort in
the year 2005, identify current obstacles and gaps to achieving that
vision, and propose action items for assignment to working teams after
the meeting.
This report summarizes the results of the deliberations in Kansas City
and the next steps recommended for successful implementation. A detailed
Appendix will be made available at a later date and will include: a listing
of attendee names, organization, address, and telephone numbers; individual
work products of each group; and tables, schematic graphics and ancillary
items that may warrant future consideration. The Appendix Table of Contents
is attached.
Opening
The meeting began with presentations from federal and state officials
that welcomed the participants and offered topics to consider in the
workgroup sessions.
Mr. Fred Dailey, Director, Ohio State Department of Agriculture, and
Mr. Gary Mitchell, Director, Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
discussed the importance of educating everyone about food safety. Mr.
Dailey said that trust between all levels of government is critical for
these concepts to be successful. Mr. Mitchell emphasized the consumer
benefit from such collaboration in that food safety is part of our core
public health mission.
Dr. Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, spoke on
the subject of the future food safety system. She indicated that this
meeting is of interest to the Strategic Planning meetings as part of
the Food Safety Initiative (FSI). Two recent events - the release of
the National Academy of Sciences' report "Ensuring Safe Food From Production
to Consumption" and President Clinton's Executive Order creating the
President's Council on Food Safety - have heightened awareness of food
safety. Dr. Woteki said she believes the current system provided a strong
foundation but we need to strengthen it still further to meet today's
food safety needs.
Mr. Joseph Levitt, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN), FDA said it is time to move "From Talking the Talk to Walking
the Walk" for improving our food safety system. A possible framework
for such a system would require: equivalent minimum regulatory standards
for everyone to apply; adequate training of inspectors; information exchange
on inspection results; verification of performance; and enforcement.
Ms. Betsy Woodward, Chief, Bureau of Food and Residue Laboratories,
Florida State Department of Agriculture, said we need to determine more
effective ways to enhance the effectiveness of the federal, state, and
local infrastructure currently in place. The Association of Food and
Drug Officials (AFDO) has developed a vision as to what a national food
safety system could and should be. AFDO calls the system Food Safety
VINE (Vertically Integrated National Enterprise). The vision includes
coordination and uniformity resulting in the better utilization of all
current food safety resources. AFDO believes the time is right to develop
a "blueprint" for a truly integrated national food regulatory system.
Ms. Margaret Glavin, Deputy Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS)/USDA stressed FSIS's commitment to a farm-to-table food
safety strategy, and recognition of the crucial role state and local
agencies play in maintaining products under USDA's jurisdiction safe
for consumers. She spoke of the Agency's role under the Federal food
safety inspection laws, and outlined the Agency's initiative to seek
legislation that will enhance state meat and poultry inspection programs
and develop a "seamless" Federal-State system for meat and poultry inspection.
Ms. Janice Oliver, Deputy Director for Systems and Support,CFSAN/FDA,
presented draft vision statements for the Food Safety Initiative Strategic
Plan and AFDO and requested comments on them:
"Consumers can be confident that food is safe, healthy, and
affordable. We work within a seamless food safety system that uses
farm-to-table preventive strategies and integrated research, surveillance,
inspection, and enforcement. We are vigilant to new and emergent threats
and consider the needs of vulnerable populations. We use science- and
risk-based approaches along with public/private partnerships. Food
is safe because everyone understands and accepts their responsibilities. [Draft
vision statement from the Food Safety Initiative's Strategic Plan,
September 1998]
"Food Safety VINE (Vertically Integrated National Enterprise)
- refers to a national food safety system consisting of common ownership
by local, state and federal agencies organized to prevent or reduce
foodborne illness, as well as economic fraud, filth, and misbranding
of food. This system utilizes all necessary and appropriate food safety
funding, resources and support at all levels with oversight and guidance
provided by federal agencies. [Draft vision statement as proposed
by AFDO, August 1998]
Presentations
Dr. Jesse Greenblatt, State Epidemiologist, New Hampshire, described
an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak from undercooked ground beef originating
in New England states, and Dr. Jerry Gibson, State Epidemiologist, State
of South Carolina, described a shell egg associated Salmonella enteritiditis outbreak.
Dr. Steve Ostroff, Associate Director Epidemiologic Science, CDC, talked
about outbreak coordination activities in CDC, including use of the Rapid
Assessment Team (RAT).
Ms. Ellen Morrison, Deputy Director, Division of Emergency & Investigational
Operations (DEIO), and Mr. Jesse Majkowski, Director, Emergency Response
Division, USDA/FSIS described a multi-state outbreak to illustrate FDA/USDA
coordination.
Dr. Morris Potter, Assistant Director for Foodborne Disease, CDC, asked
the participants to review and comment on the following: FDA/USDA draft "Foodborne
Outbreak Response and Coordination" document; the CDC draft "Essential
Surveillance and Outbreak Response Components of a State Foodborne Disease
Prevention and Control Program" document; and a draft CDC/CSTE checklist,
to guide local and state epidemiologists on communications during outbreak
investigations.
Mr. Tom Schwarz, Director of the Division of Cooperative Programs, CFSAN/FDA,
discussed the draft Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program
Standards and Dr. John Kvenberg, Director of the Division of HACCP Programs,
CFSAN/FDA, discussed a Retail HACCP Pilot Program.
II. OUTBREAK COORDINATION
Introduction
Historically, the initial surveillance/detection, investigation and
response to outbreaks or sporadic cases resulting from foodborne pathogens
were undertaken by local health agencies. Today, because of our widespread
food distribution system and enhanced surveillance techniques, seemingly
routine local investigations develop into statewide, national or even
international emergencies in a matter of hours or days. To address how
to effectively respond to these changes, FDA, working with CDC and USDA,
called representatives of state and local governments together. Our goal
was to identify key problems in coordinating foodborne disease outbreak
investigations across local, state and federal agencies and identify
ways to address these problems. Five work groups were charged with identifying
their vision of how each of five areas should look in the year 2005,
what obstacles exist to getting to the vision and how to overcome the
obstacles. The areas were:
- Coordination of communication across local, state
and federal agencies.
- Coordination of media activities.
- Collection and analysis of epidemiologic, environmental and traceback data.
- Obtaining adequate resources for investigations.
- Laboratory analyses of human, food and environmental
specimens.
VISION: Communication: In the year 2005, we
will operate within a system consisting of inter-governmental trust stemming
from mutual respect among key players, and roles and responsibilities
will be clearly defined; a secure, universal, interactive and integrated
continuous technology based communication system will be operational,
with standardized training and procedures, with an integrated feedback
and evaluation system, and appropriate involvement of all stakeholders.
Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
- Lack of resources
- State, local, federal law differences, legal issues, Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) concerns
- Lack of open and omni-directional communication
- Lack of trust
- Power and jurisdictional issues: "Turf"
- Incompatible technologies
Action Items/Recommendations
- Lack of resources: optimize resource utilization; facilitate partnering
with federal, state, local agencies, industry, and consumers; educate
the public, industry, and media
- Law discrepancies, legal issues, and FOIA: identify differences in
laws; inform legislators on food safety issues; adopt national standards
with incentives
- Lack of trust: As a result of: standardized training, laboratory
accreditation, standardized response and reporting policies, accept
with confidence each other's work product; and establish an interagency
food safety advisory committee
- Power and jurisdiction ("Turf"): establish clearly defined roles
and responsibilities and a process for change; promote mutual respect
through all inclusive stakeholder meetings.
- Incompatible technologies: establish national consensus standards;
develop a federally funded uniform automated system, and software/hardware.
VISION: Media activities: In 2005, media activities
will have an established protocol that includes who, what, where and
when to contact in agencies and the media working with state-of-the-art
technology with compatibility to network with industry, media, and government
agencies.
Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
- Lack of trust, rapport, and respect
- Lack of internal protocol of who to contact within agencies
- Time zone differences in issuance of press release raise issues
- Cultural, social, and language (jargon) differences
- Lack of rapid information sharing between agencies
- Lack of training of media contacts
- Lack of follow up, closure, evidence and feedback
Action Items/Recommendations
- Develop a protocol for media activities.
- Training: develop a uniform national model; develop media, technical,
and organizational training and risk-based communications.
- Overcoming lack of information sharing: develop consensus on what
information is to be shared; develop working relationship with contacts
for inter- and intra-agency information sharing; adopt an incident
command system to inform people with current information.
VISION: Data collection: In 2005, collection
of epidemiologic, environmental, and traceback data will have a centrally
managed, secured, automated, omni-directional database that includes
a communication alert system and standardized formats.
Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
- Lack of uniformity
- Lack of resources
- Lack of cooperation
- Legal restrictions
- No central data repository
Action Items/Recommendations
- Uniformity: establish a process for developing minimum uniform standards.
- Resources: see "Resource" section below.
- Cooperation: establish a shared, national vision for all stakeholders;
establish clearly defined roles and a communication process; provide
opportunity for and analyze feedback; create opportunities for stakeholders
to work together; and establish centralized data coordination.
- Legal restrictions: develop models for data sharing and promote adoption
through public and industry support.
- Central data repository: identify criteria for options, access, format,
software, compatibility, and location.
VISION: Resources: In 2005, the National Food
Safety System has all the necessary resources for a national computer
system, an adequate number of staff trained to a universal standard,
media contacts for public education, all needed equipment, contingency
funds to cover the unexpected and the unknown, and periodic stakeholder
meetings.
Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
See obstacles identified in the "Communication" section.
Action Items/Recommendations
- Need a national computer system: conduct a needs assessment; develop
a plan; design the system; and allocate funds.
- Staffing needs: define roles and responsibilities; establish nationally
accredited standards and training to meet these standards for each
discipline; compare existing resources with identified requirements;
and conduct periodic evaluations.
- Other Needed Equipment: conduct a needs assessment; establish a national
oversight for continuous review; and conduct ongoing training for use
of equipment and methodology.
- Contingency fund: identify needs for the fund; establish a dedicated
fund from which to draw; identify sources of funding.
- Industry role defined and accepted: hold stakeholder meetings to
develop role definition and facilitate communication.
VISION: Laboratory Analysis: (The laboratory
analysis work group adopted the "Communication" vision.) In the year
2005, we will operate within a system consisting of inter-governmental
trust stemming from mutual respect among key players, and roles and responsibilities
will be clearly defined; a secure, universal, interactive and integrated
continuous technology based communication system will be operational,
with standardized training and procedures, with an integrated feedback
and evaluation system, and appropriate involvement of all stakeholders.
Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
- Lack of defined roles and responsibilities
- Lack of resources
- Lack of laboratory accreditation
- Lack of validated methods
- Lack of communication
- Lack of research and development coordination
Action Items/Recommendations
- Roles and responsibilities: identify communications gaps; clarify
roles and responsibilities by forming a task force of representatives
from different associations and agencies
- Lack of resources: optimize current resources through networking;
develop grassroots support from industry and government associations.
- Laboratory accreditation: develop national food laboratory standards;
designate laboratory accreditation body, including use of third party
certification agencies.
- Validation of analytical methods: form a work group to develop a
methods validation process.
- Communication: develop a mechanism to enhance communication among
diverse laboratories, i.e. public health, agriculture, and environmental.
- Research and development coordination: minimize duplication of efforts;
conduct an inventory of current system; identify research and development
needs at all levels.
III. INTEGRATED FOOD SAFETY NETWORK
Introduction
Food safety agencies at all levels of government generally share the
same goals but employ different methods and authorities that need coordination
and greater consistency. When added together, the combined resources
of local, state and federal agencies are extensive but can be more effectively
planned and applied to the diverse challenges of regulating over one
million domestic establishments at the manufacturing, processing, distribution
and retail levels. Millions of increased imported food entries into the
United States and an increasing variety of farm products are adding to
the pressure of effectively using current resources.
Therefore, to meet these challenges, four work groups were formed, each
representing a region of the United States. Each workgroup consisted
of local, state and federal officials and each was asked to:
- construct a vision for a national integrated food safety system in
the year 2005
- identify the current obstacles and gaps to such a system
- recommend a series of action items and work groups to overcome these
obstacles
The results of their deliberations follow.
CHARGE: VISION
The first charge to each workgroup was to develop a consensus of what,
in the year 2005, an integrated national system of food safety would
be for improved uniformity, efficiency and effectiveness of programs
at all levels of government. The results of the work groups' efforts
were a list of attributes to define a vision such a system would possess.
Deleted during this process was use of the word "vertical" to describe
an integrated national food safety system.
Two of the groups actually prepared narrative vision statements. Additionally,
each group designed a schematic diagram depicting a visual interpretation
of an integrated food safety system. Each diagram is contained in the
appendix section of this report.
The work groups contributed recommendations that the integrated national
system should be characterized as integrated, from farm to table, seamless,
uniform and synergistic. It would be proactive, preventive, science-
and risk-based, goal oriented, flexible, responsive, measurable, and
accountable. It would also have shared resources, be supportive and efficient.
Roles would be defined, linked and interdependent. Participants would
be equal and have mutual trust and respect. The system would employ research
and development, shared data, effective communication and crisis management,
strategic planning, evaluation and adjustment, minimum uniform standards,
training and education, standardization and certification of personnel.
The two narrative vision statements that were developed by work groups
follow:
- A Fully Integrated National Enterprise (FINE-FS) that is responsive,
flexible and seamless. This system is universally recognized in disciplines
such as science, research, surveillance, and education. The system
has partners, represented by federal, state, and local agencies,the
food industry and an educated and engaged consumer population. This
partnership adhering to the central principles of food safety, will
bear the fruit of effective behaviors that ultimately lead to a decrease
in death and illness and a concomitant increase in consumer confidence
of our food supply.
- Strategic Alliance for Food Excellence (SAFE) - A system whose goal
is to prevent Foodborne Illness and to assure a safe, wholesome food
supply, properly represented to consumers.
CHARGE: Obstacles Identified to Achieving This Vision Were:
The second charge to each of the work groups was to identify obstacles
to implementing an integrated food safety system. The information pr
esented by each group was reviewed and consolidated to reflect all identified
obstacles. The following is a compilation of those obstacles.
- Lack of trust
- Lack of commitment
- Lack of clearly defined roles / responsibilities
- Lack of uniformity
- Lack of clearly defined / understandable plan
- Resistance to change
- Size / complexity of current system
- Number and diversity of stakeholders
- Lack of industry / consumer buy-in
- Power and jurisdiction ("Turf")
- Legal issues: no minimum uniform standards; data / information sharing,
resource sharing; science-based regulatory policy; agreement on implementation
- Lack of resources / ineffective use of resources: lack of and competition
for funding; staffing; time; training / education; lab capacity
- Ineffective communication: no forum for all inclusive participation;
incompatible system
CHARGE: ACTION ITEMS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The third charge for each work group was to develop recommendations
to overcome the identified obstacles. The groups did not always identify
the same obstacles, but the recommendations for action were similar.
Often implementation of an action item will correct or improve more than
one obstacle.
- Lack of trust: develop workgroup to define roles and responsibility; "walk-the-walk";
establish an all inclusive oversight committee with agency letters
of commitment
- Lack of commitment: take messages back to each individual organization
– get beyond 50 state group; support follow-up meeting with governors,
commissioners, secretaries, consumers, etc; establish coordinated /
continuous efforts; build consensus; create and disseminate vision
and plan
- Lack of clearly defined roles / responsibilities: see other action
items
- Lack of uniformity: initiate survey of existing laws; develop standardized
training / certification; identify and reduce overlaps / inconsistencies;
link funding to incentives and consequences; adopt national standards
- Lack of clearly defined / understandable plan: develop clearly defined
/ understandable plan; see other actions items and vision statements
- Resistance to change: increase frequency of communication relative
to change needed/expected; support changes at all levels of government
(Federal, State, Local); educate to achieve industry / consumer buy-in;
develop clearly defined vision; reward initiative and provide incentives;
facilitate outplacement services – personnel exchanges
- Size / complexity of current system and number and diversity of stakeholders:
identify stakeholders skills / capabilities; specify roles / responsibilities;
recruit participation and buy-in; maintain flexibility to accommodate
differences; develop communication strategies
- Lack of industry / consumer buy-in: determine education needs; establish
steering committee to educate advocacy and industry groups; raise visibility
of food safety / public health; demonstrate programs at all levels
(e.g. state regulators on Rapid Assessment Team (R.A.T.) evaluations);
request that FSI be on agenda of National Governor's Council; develop
and implement media program to promote FSI (e.g. public safety announcements,
public television)
- Power and jurisdiction ("Turf"): develop partnerships between agencies
involved; see other action items
- Legal issues: adopt model codes / ordinances – minimum standards;
address confidentiality issues that impede exchange of data; identify
and address legal issues that impede cooperation; mandate cooperation
- Lack of resources / ineffective use of resources: identify resource
needs / what is available; redistribute funds / share; develop new
sources of funding; prioritize by risk / re-engineer; conduct cost
/ benefit analysis; determine if / where new resources are needed;
assess staffing needs at all levels; allocate resources based on needs
assessment; consolidate Agencies
- Ineffective Communication : develop workgroup to address communication
issues; hire contractor to gather information, evaluate current systems,
develop systems as necessary and standardize data/systems; establish
e-mail & and web page for regular updates and to disseminate information;
conduct informal / formal networking meetings; hold more 50 state meetings
IV. COORDINATING BODY
Mr. Gary Dykstra, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs,
ORA/FDA, and Ms. Janice Oliver, Deputy Director for Systems and Support,
CFSAN/FDA, asked the Work Groups to address questions regarding the need
to establish a Coordinating Body:
Questions Addressed
- Do we really want/need a Coordinating Committee?
All of the groups reported they were in favor of having a Coordinating
Body to follow-up on activities from this meeting and to keep momentum
going.
- What would be the charge to this coordinating group?
A steering committee
To carry forward next-steps and action items from this meeting
- How many people should be on this group?
The general opinion was no more than 15 people should be on the
Coordinating Body.
- What groups should be represented?
It was recommended that the group include representatives from
Federal, State and Local agencies. Desired attributes include:
people from Departments of Health and Agriculture, as well as state
laboratories and epidemiologists, a cross-section of regions and
professional associations, and participants at the Kansas City
meeting (not mandatory).
- Who should be members?
Three of 4 groups identified specific individuals for membership.
One Work Group did not think there was a need for an additional
coordinating group and suggested that Chairs from the working groups,
along with Federal representatives, make up any Coordinating Body.
- What would the group be called?
Kansas City Coordinating Committee or KC3 was the only name suggested
at the meeting
V. FSI Leadership: Feedback, Commitment, Next Steps
Mr. Lou Carson, Deputy Director, Food Safety Initiative Staff, CFSAN/FDA,
discussed meeting highlights and action items:
- FDA will work to get a draft summary of the 50 State Meeting out
by October 10 to the participants.
- Need input and energy from the state and local agencies to educate
others on the vision of an integrated national food safety system.
- We will look at the suggestions on a Coordinating Body and asked
the participants for feedback.
- We need to resolve questions on how to form/develop work groups.
Work groups will cover both outbreak coordination and the integrated
system
- Work Groups suggested by participants during the meeting: roles and
responsibilities; capacity and resource needs; data sharing and collection;
communicating uniform standards with flexibility; communicating the
plan and vision; education and training; and new technology / research
and development.
- We need to have public meetings to involve stakeholders.
- A commitment is needed for this concept to succeed!
Ms. Caren Wilcox, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, said
that the recently created President's Council on Food Safety will be
interested in topics from this meeting including: state activities, better
coordination of budgets, strategic planning and creating a seamless system.
Ms. Wilcox also urged participants to appear and testify at the public
meetings already published in the Federal Register, which are
under the auspices of the President's Council on Food Safety.
Mr. Gary Dykstra, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs,
ORA/FDA, said that he kept hearing several key words during the discussions:
seamless; omni-directional; trust; turf; standardized; and change. Mr.
Dykstra asked the participants to think about the concept of "sharing" inspection
information and analytical sample data and to talk to your supervisors
and colleagues about this meeting.
Ms. Debbie Ralston, Deputy Director, Office of Regional Operations,
ORA/FDA, said that FDA has started having 50 State telephone conference
calls to provide updates on emergencies, outbreaks and other activities
of interest. She asked the States to provide input on these calls.
Ms. Janice Oliver provided comments and next steps:
- CFSAN will continue to work with ORA, CVM, USDA, and CDC on next
steps at the Federal level.
- USDA/FDA will sponsor a meeting in the winter 1999 with State Agriculture
and Health Commissioners.
- The suggestion was made that food safety should be on the agenda
of the Governors' conference.
- Asked for suggestions on getting states involved in this concept
/ process. Please call her or Lou Carson.
- Encouraged the States to attend and/or to submit statements to the
docket for upcoming President's Council on Food Safety and Food Safety
Initiative strategic planning meetings.
- Asked States to contact Mr. Richard Barnes if they are interested
in hosting follow-up regional meetings.
- Asked participants to send their name to FDA if interested in being
involved in the next steps.
- Stated that it appears that most people want a coordinating committee
established.
- FSI Accomplishments - Stated that FDA would make our accomplishment
reports available to the states on a periodic basis.
- Stated that there was a need to take some additional steps
soon to better integrate our national food safety system.
- Suggested that a timeline of 5 to 10 years is a realistic
timeframe to significantly improve our current food safety
system into an integrated national system.
Mr. Carson closed the meeting by thanking everyone for attending.
APPENDIX*
Table of Contents
- Detailed
meeting summary document
- Meeting attendee information (includes name, organization, address,
telephone number)
- Figures / Diagrams presented at the meeting
- Meeting evaluation summary
- Pre-meeting materials (invitation, handouts, work group charges)
* Note: the Appendix will be available at a later date
"Meeting Challenges Together", Phase II December
8-11, 1998
|