Testimony of Secretary Dan Glickman Release No. 0347.97 Testimony OF SECRETARY DAN GLICKMAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, D.C. -- OCTOBER 8, 1997 INTRODUCTION Mr. Chairman, amid the national fervor for less government, it is the nearly unanimous sentiment of the American people that government should do more to ensure food safety. In fact, a recent Newsweek poll indicated that two out of three people even feel that government should spend more in this arena. These sentiments should not surprise us. Today's consumers are well-educated. They grasp the complexity of food safety challenges in the modern world, and they look to us for peace of mind. Before anything else, I believe that people look to their government to protect them in ways that they cannot protect themselves -- whether it's national security, the safety of airplane engines, the solvency of our banks or the safety of our food. Ensuring consumers this security requires constant vigilance. More to the point of today's discussion, it also requires the ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, our most fundamental responsibility is ensuring that Americans have the safest food possible. The Clinton Administration and Congress have worked together in a fairly nonpartisan way to make progress on a number of food safety fronts. I am hopeful that we can do so again on behalf of the Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act. We are working today in a food safety environment that is vastly different from just a decade ago. With the food industry changing so dramatically all around us, government's means of ensuring food safety have got to change, too. That's the sentiment underlying the Administration's initiative on fruits and vegetables. We're recognizing that as we eat more food from around the world, our consumers still deserve one high level of safety, no matter where their food comes from. Behind me, you see a chart that lists some of USDA's food safety accomplishments -- from the safe-food-handling instructions that are on every meat and poultry product you buy at the grocery store to our modernized inspection system. I show you this, not to boast, but to give you the context surrounding our request for enhanced enforcement tools. This legislation does not come in a vacuum. We are moving forward with a broad-based, sophisticated food safety strategy that includes: cutting-edge research into the root causes of contamination, stepped-up consumer education, expanded nationwide monitoring to more quickly control outbreaks, efforts to improve international food safety as well as a new meat and poultry inspection system. In every way, this Administration is shifting America's food safety efforts toward a science-based preventive approach that's best exemplified by what we call HACCP, which is short for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. This new system will revolutionize meat and poultry safety. But for HACCP to live up to its full promise, government must be able to effectively enforce its higher standards. Simply put, we need new tools for our new rules. Before HACCP, our meat and poultry inspection system went largely unchanged for 90 years. For most of this century, our inspections have been touch-sight-and-smell examinations aimed at catching contamination after the fact. Based on what we knew about food safety in the early 1900s, this system served the American people fairly well. Now we know that there is one critical flaw: Even the most eagle-eyed inspector cannot detect invisible food safety threats -- such as E. coli 0157:H7 and salmonella -- which pose the greatest danger to people's health. These pathogens cause thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses each year, not to mention up to $3 billion in medical costs and productivity losses. HACCP harnesses state-of-the-art technology to cut down dramatically on food-borne illness. For the first time, there will be regular tests for E. coli and salmonella. For the first time, plants will be required to draw up safety plans that don't just catch contamination, but close the safety gaps that invite it in the first place. For the first time, the focus is on prevention. Beginning in January 1998 and continuing through January 2000, all meat and poultry plants will be required to put in place a HACCP safety plan that's tailored to their operations. That, too, is a major shift. No longer is government dictating a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, we're giving each company the freedom to look at their operation, and craft a plan that works for them. Government only cares about results -- the safety of the food -- which we will confirm through audits' of pathogen tests, examination of company records, and rigorous on-site inspections. In this way, HACCP represents a major shift in the relationship between government and industry because it clearly assigns industry the responsibility for producing safe food. USDA inspectors are there to confirm that companies live up to this new duty. Obviously, producing safe food is a responsibility most in the industry already take very seriously. This legislation provides incentives for every company to rise to the new level of responsibility. The major provisions are: civil penalties for companies that fail to meet food safety standards, mandatory government notice when unsafe food may be on the market, mandatory recall authority when a voluntary effort fails, and clarification of our existing authority to refuse or withdraw inspection for willful or repeated violations of food safety laws or regulations. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE I know that these proposals don't win many popularity contests with industry. I want to make clear that the vast majority of the industry has really stepped up to the plate on food safety. From consumer education, to research, to supporting HACCP, they have been allies. Unfortunately, we have always had our differences when it comes to government enforcement powers. Back in 1907, the public outcry over Upton Sinclair's graphic depiction of unsanitary conditions in meat packing plants led to the first federal meat inspection law. It was one of America's first consumer protection laws, and industry stood firmly against it. One Chicago meat packer vigorously protested what he described as putting "our business in the hands of theorists, chemists, sociologists, and so forth." But Congress did the right thing, and consumers won an historic victory. Sensory inspections worked fairly well back then when the major public health concerns were the transmission of diseases from sick animals to humans and unsanitary conditions for animal slaughter and processing. Enforcement authorities were limited to withdrawal of inspectors if a plant refused to destroy condemned product and criminal penalties for people who sold food that was unfit for human consumption. Radical ideas in their time, they're no-brainers today. Just to illustrate how much things have changed: During the first year of mandatory inspections, USDA had inspectors at 163 plants in 58 cities examining about 42 million animals. Today, federal inspectors work in 6,496 plants in thousands of cities, inspecting about 137 million head of livestock and almost 8 billion poultry per year. That's a lot of meat. In the 60s, as the volume and complexity of meat and poultry production increased, Congress gave USDA authority over allied industries -- such as renderers, animal food manufacturers, transporters and retail operations -- recognizing that they, too, play a role in food safety. Congress also gave USDA the power to detain and seize suspect product, conduct investigations, and request a court to issue an injunction. HACCP: A PREVENTIVE STRATEGY These are aggressive actions that come into play only after there is considerable evidence that the public health has been put at risk. Today, we are asking for more flexible powers aimed largely at prevention. Take the case for civil penalties. Most folks correct minor safety slips on a warning, but some do need a stronger nudge. Civil penalties provide that, but more broadly they serve as deterrents -- giving every company a powerful incentive to fix minor problems before they turn into major public health incidents. Why should government wait until people are sick and a massive recall and shutdown are necessary? Why do that when a fine may prevent things from getting out of hand in the first place? For those who say government does not need these powers, that we've got plenty already, I've got to tell you: that really misses the whole point of HACCP. It is not enough that we catch most unsafe food and unsafe practices. It is not enough that we get outbreaks more quickly under control. We must take the next step. We must focus on preventing contamination in the first place. To do that, every plant and processor must be required to be self-vigilant. That's not to say that federal inspectors just walk away. Their role will be even more important under the new system. What I'm saying is that it is no longer acceptable for a plant to rely solely on USDA inspectors to cry gotcha.' Given the volume of food we're dealing with today, industry has to be more directly responsible for producing safe food. CIVIL PENALTIES That's the preventive HACCP approach. I'll give you an example that illustrates the distinction. In a plant that generally does a good job, USDA inspectors kept finding contamination. Each time, they seized product and slowed down the line until the problem disappeared. Some say that's all the authority we need. But this approach never fixed the root cause of the problem. As a result, the contamination kept coming back, and inspectors were simply expected to keep catching it as carcass after carcass whizzed by. HACCP tells plants: You're responsible, too. Find the safety gap and close it. Most companies willingly rise to this responsibility. But in talking about enforcement, we're talking about how we deal with the few who don't. Civil penalties will ensure results. They can also be tailored to fit the offense. The way the system's set up now, it's a fairly all-or-nothing approach. It would be like replacing our entire criminal justice system and its grades of punishment -- from fines, to parole, to hard time -- with one choice: Execution or acquittal. Eventually, bad actors figure out that they can get away with minor misdeeds. With degrees of penalties, we can keep everyone focused on exceeding the higher bar of safety. And, the penalties are kept fair. Poor record keeping, in most cases, is not the same as shoddy practices, but both need to be corrected. I should add that civil penalties are not a new idea. This Administration has proposed them twice before, and 18 state meat and poultry inspection programs use them. North of the border, where 42% of our imported meat and poultry comes from, the Canadian government has civil penalty authority and the power to order mandatory recalls. That, too, is essential in today's world. MANDATORY NOTIFICATION AND RECALL The fact is, while HACCP will dramatically improve food safety, there is no 100% guarantee. We're working hard on the research front, and to ensure safe food from farm to table. But we do not yet have a silver bullet. This act better protects consumers from unsafe food by strengthening USDA's ability to pull all the suspect meat and poultry quickly from the marketplace. Our ability to do that requires 2 authorities that we currently do not have: Mandatory notification. Government and industry cannot move to protect people until we know there is a problem. We had a plant that notified a top customer -- a restaurant chain -- 48 hours before it got around to telling USDA that there might be contaminated food in the marketplace. That's two days before public health experts and everyone else -- grocery stores, other restaurants -- even had a chance to act. Two days when people could have become ill or worse. It's easily avoided: When a company has reason to believe there's a public food safety problem, government should get the call first. When necessary, government should also have the authority to order a mandatory recall. What we have to remember today is that even when everyone acts in good faith, the sheer volume of a recall can be overwhelming. It's not uncommon that a day's work in one plant involves a million pounds of product that's quickly shipped nationwide. Even well-intentioned plants cannot reach every corner store and restaurant to ensure a rapid response to a recall. Yet consumers expect government to ensure that every link in the commercial food chain responds promptly. Most do. That's why a voluntary recall will always be our first line of action. Unfortunately, while most companies are run by good people who understand that safe food sells, in the food industry -- as in any industry -- there are bad actors who drag their feet. In those cases, government needs the power to step in and order the unsafe food recalled -- wherever it remains in the food distribution chain. This authority is important. Sure, we can threaten to withdraw inspectors from a plant. But the fact is there are no inspectors to withdraw from a restaurant or a warehouse or a supermarket. Mandatory recall is our back-up. It's consumers' insurance policy that in the event a voluntary recall falls short, their government can move quickly to complete it and protect them. FOOD IS PROVIDED LESS PROTECTION THAN OTHER PRODUCTS Almost all consumer protection laws have been enacted since the end of World War II, and many provide for mandatory recalls of dangerous products. As the chart behind me shows, government can recall unsafe toys, cars, insecticides, and infant formula, but not unsafe food. I should add that the Consumer Product Safety Commission also regularly fines companies that distribute unsafe products, and the Federal Aviation Administration levels civil penalties against airlines with lax safety procedures. Why treat unsafe food any differently? This enforcement gap gets downright absurd in comparison with powers USDA already has. As the third chart indicates: USDA can fine people who mistreat animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act. We can use fines to protect farmers and ranchers from unfair trading practices. Abuse a circus elephant, sell a cat without a license, market a potato that's too small, keep bad records on your watermelons, fail to report to the onion committee -- fine, fine, fine, fine, fine. Yet if you produce unsafe food -- the only one of these items that puts people's lives at stake -- there is no civil penalty. At a certain point, it becomes fairly evident who's being protected here. I think we can come down a little more strongly on the side of the consumer. Mr. Chairman, protecting the safety of America's food is a fundamental responsibility of government. I am here today to say that we can do more. The Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act is not the last step, but it is an essential next step. The bottom line is: Times have changed since 1907. We have new rules that promise a revolution in food safety, but they require modern, flexible, effective enforcement tools. This legislation will bring us up to speed. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important legislation. With me today are Dr. Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety, and Mr. Tom Billy, Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. We'd be happy to answer any questions you or other Senators may have. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov