by

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
Oral Statement
Before Senate Committee On Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
September 20, 2000

         "Mr. Chairman, Senator Harkin, members of the Committee...I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Agriculture Department's efforts to protect public health and reduce foodborne illness by improving food safety. Under the leadership and commitment of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, we have made a wide range of improvements in our food safety system across the Federal government, and nowhere is that more apparent than at USDA.

         "Americans enjoy the safest food in the world and our food safety system is the best in the world, but it's not perfect. The Food and Drug Administration, The Centers for Disease Control and USDA's Food Safety Agency are working together to make it even better.

         "USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (or FSIS) is probably the largest and most effective food safety inspection force in the world. Last year, our inspectors examined approximately 8.5 billion carcasses and 3.4 billion pounds of egg products in over 6,000 plants. And to ensure the safety of imported products, we also maintain a comprehensive system of import inspection and controls.

         "When we reorganized the Department in 1994, we created a separate food safety mission area to ensure an arms-length regulatory system that is independent of our market promotion activities. And in 1996, we launched revolutionary improvements to our meat and poultry inspection system through our Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rulemaking.

         "Our new system directly targets pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli that can't be detected with the naked eye. Microbiological contamination of food by pathogens is the most serious food-related public health threat, responsible for an estimated 76 million illnesses a year. By no means have we abandoned traditional physical inspection -- the sight, touch and smell check performed by USDA inspectors. But our focus now is on reducing pathogens.

         "HACCP provides the framework for our pathogen reduction strategy. Each meat and poultry plant is responsible for setting up and following a plan to prevent, reduce and control food safety hazards. And by and large industry has done a good job in devising their own HACCP plans that comply with these new rules. That's not to say that there aren't some bad actors, but the vast majority of industry has successfully risen to the HACCP challenge.

         "It's important to recognize just how significant a step HACCP is. It represents nothing short of a revolutionary change in food safety policy. It incorporated, for the first time, modern scientific knowledge and principles. And it replaced an antiquated system that had failed to keep up with nearly a century's worth of progress.

         "But HACCP alone isn't enough. At USDA, we believe it is imperative to set clear, measurable, objective performance standards that industry must meet. Without some kind of benchmark, we have no way of measuring success and progress in reducing contamination and foodborne illness. Without performance standards, we would be relying on little more than an industry honor code. We began by setting a performance standard for Salmonella. It's really very simple. We collected data to establish the national rate of contamination in raw meat and poultry products. Some plants were above the average; some were below. Under the performance standard, all plants must now have a Salmonella contamination rate that is at least no worse than this baseline.

         "A basketball coach once said: "If it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, then why do we keep score?" Performance standards are simply our mechanism for keeping score, for making sure that plants are meeting their food safety responsibilities. And needless to say, when it comes to the safety of our food supply, it matters a great deal whether we win or lose.

         "This is something of a new paradigm in food safety...and one that not everyone agrees with. Performance standards were a source of great controversy when the original HACCP rule was being debated and drafted. And more recently, they have been challenged in the courts. I believe these attempts to undermine our performance standards are dangerously misguided. The fact is that these standards are reasonable and reachable. And most importantly, the standards are working.

         "Today, we are releasing new data that demonstrate dramatic Salmonella reductions over the last year (from July of 1999 to June of 2000). For example, in those plants that have completed HACCP implementation, Salmonella has been cut by more than half on chicken carcasses and by one-third on ground beef. And for every product we regulate, at least 82 percent of plants have met or done better than the performance standard.

         "Given the success thus far, we hope in the future to be able to set the bar even higher, to establish even more stringent performance standards. We are also looking at the possibility of establishing performance standards for other pathogens. Next month, we will complete a preliminary survey on the prevalence of Campylobacter in poultry, the first step toward possible performance standards.

         "It's important to recognize that pathogen reduction -- and other food safety imperatives -- don't begin and end at the slaughterhouse door. Pathogens and other food safety hazards can be introduced on the farm, in storage, during transportation, in restaurants or in the home. Producers, packers, shippers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers all share the food safety responsibility. That's why we've pursued a seamless farm-to-table food safety strategy.

         "For example, we've provided farmers with information on residue avoidance and helped them adopt quality assurance practices.

         We've also launched a public information campaign to educate consumers about safe food handling and preparation. But I would like to see us do more on this front, perhaps by funding top-of-the-line public service announcements to keep emphasizing the food safety message. Of course, this is no substitute for strong regulation and sound, science-based inspection, but it is an important complement that we must continue to pursue.

         "Consumers also need to take steps to prevent foodborne illness -- such as cooking thoroughly, washing hands and proper food-handling. USDA has devised a pathogen reduction system -- and an overall food safety system -- in which public health trumps all other interests and concerns. Our system is working. But to ensure our continued success, we must constantly integrate new technologies, adopt new research techniques and be on the lookout for emerging and evolving pathogens.

         "Our continued success also depends on help from Congress. Congress has been very supportive of USDA's food safety efforts, but the Senate's FY 2001 appropriations bill is currently several million dollars below our request. We also need $6 million on top of our budget request to cover costs associated with the delay in the implementation of the HACCP Models Project. And to ensure effective future use of resources to address egg safety, a restriction on the Secretary of Agriculture's ability to delegate shell egg surveillance activities should be removed from appropriations language. We need expanded enforcement authorities like mandatory recall and the ability to fine.

         "I also strongly believe that Congress should empower USDA with expanded authorities that will put more teeth into our food safety efforts. We need to have mandatory recall and notification authority. The current system of voluntary industry recall is simply not reliable enough. And to ensure that there's some accountability and flexibility in the system, we also need the authority to impose civil penalties against firms that violate federal food safety rules.

         "The American people expect us to be tireless and vigilant when it comes to food safety. I've found that even the most outspoken skeptics of government activism agree that some regulation is necessary to keep our food supply safe and protect consumers from food-related illnesses. We are proud of the record we've built, but we also know that we can do even better. I hope that Congress can work with us to help USDA become an even more effective food safety watchdog in the future.

         "Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to be here today."

#