I am Carol Tucker Foreman, distinguished fellow and director of the Food Policy Institute of Consumer Federation of America. CFA is a nonprofit association of 260 pro-consumer groups. We seek to advance consumer interests through education and advocacy. Founded in 1968, CFA includes national, state and local consumer organizations, senior citizen groups, and consumer co-operatives. Our funding comes from membership dues, conferences and services. An affiliated organization, Consumer Federation of America Foundation, receives grants from foundations. CFA's policy positions are determined by our membership, debating and voting at annual meetings, and by our elected and representative board of directors.
I returned to CFA last year after 25 years in government service and as the owner of a small business. From 1977-81, I was assistant secretary of agriculture. My duties included responsibility for what is now the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In 1986, I established the Safe Food Coalition, a group of consumer, senior citizen, and public health organizations, food-borne illness victims and trade unions. The SFC has led the effort to modernize and reorient the meat and poultry inspection system to focus on reducing the causes of food-borne illness. I am one of three consumer members of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection.
Last month the consumer representatives on the NACMPI, Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Nancy Donley, president of Safe Tables--Our Priority (S.T.O.P.) and I wrote to Senator Daschle endorsing S. 1988. I ask that a copy of our letter be included in this hearing record along with my formal statement.
S. 1988 would ensure that all meat and poultry products produced in the United States are inspected under a seamless system constituting a basic set of public health-based requirements and eliminating the prohibition on interstate shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry. The Bill has attracted a wide array of sponsors and supporters. The consumer interest in S. 1988 is clear. Pathogens do not recognize distinctions between federal and state systems or large and small plants. Contaminated meat is a public health threat regardless of its source, and the risks of contamination should be reduced wherever they occur.
CFA supports S. 1988 because we believe that, in its present form, it will help make meat and poultry products safer and contribute to improved public health.
USDA has moved aggressively over the past six years to reduce food-borne illness. The Department has traded the old fashioned "poke and sniff" inspection program for the public health-based Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) inspection system. This system requires all plants to have programs in place to control pathogens and to meet basic performance standards for sanitation. As of January 2000, all meat and poultry slaughter and processing plants operate under PR/HACCP. Surveys conducted by both USDA and the Centers for Disease Control indicate the program is having a beneficial effect. Two years of testing in large plants under the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule show decreases in Salmonella prevalence in all product categories. (USDA, FSIS, March 21,2000)
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control announced that the incidence of food-borne illness has also declined and attributed that in part to the institution of this new public health based meat and poultry inspection program. The CDC stated, "FoodNet data for 1999 indicate a decline in several major bacterial and parasitic causes of foodborne illness....Decreases in the incidence of foodborne illnesses occurred concurrently with disease prevention efforts, including implementation of changes in meat and poultry processing plants..." (CDC, Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Incidence of Foodborne Illness--Selected Sites, U.S., 1999, March 17, 2000)
It is now time to assure that all meat and poultry plants, whether inspected by federal or state personnel, meet the same minimum federal requirements. There are 25 state inspection programs covering about 3,000 plants and accounting for about 7 percent of all meat and poultry products consumed in the United States. Those plants operate under a compromise exception written into the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1967 and the Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1968.
Current federal law allows meat and poultry to fall under state inspection if the state inspection system is "at least equal to" federal inspection. The state-inspected product may not, however, move in interstate commerce. This provision was adopted to secure passage of the 1967 FMIA. That law was driven by the revelation of filthy conditions and lack of standards in state-inspected meat plants and the need to improve physical facilities and sanitation practices. However, it became clear that some of the smallest plants could not meet the physical facility requirements of the proposed law.
Therefore, a compromise was struck that meat from these plants could be sold if the state had an inspection system that was "equal to" the federal system. At the same time Congress prohibited the state-inspected meat from moving in interstate commerce. There was no discussion in 1967 of the potential public health risk inherent in this action, but the prohibition on sale across state lines recognized that these products were likely not to be the same as those produced in federally inspected plants.
Although theoretically "equal to," state-inspected plants have, too frequently, operated at a lower level than federally inspected ones. In 1994, USDA's Inspector General reported that state programs were weak in policing plant sanitation and that the federal government is weak in following up to make sure deficiencies in the state inspection system are fixed. (USDA, Office of Inspector General Audit Report, "Food Safety and Inspection Service's Oversight of State-Administered Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs," January 1994).
In 1996 the Wall Street Journal detailed the problems with Florida's state inspection system and quoted the head of the state's meat inspection program acknowledging that the state inspectors are more lenient on inspection standards than federal inspectors would be. The article also noted consumer fear and outrage over lower standards.
S. 1988 addresses the "equal to" problem by establishing a seamless national meat and poultry inspection system. It would require state meat and poultry inspection programs to enforce federal inspection requirements under new cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture. This means products produced in state-inspected plants would be subject to Salmonella testing by federal inspectors as well as in-distribution sampling. USDA would also conduct annual compliance audits of state inspection programs. In return, products from these state-inspected plants could be sold in interstate commerce.
Mr. Chairman, the plan underlying this legislation was subjected to two full years of consideration by the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection. FSIS staff proposals were discussed and debated and then rewritten to meet concerns expressed by committee members. The NACMPI includes representatives from all segments of the regulated industry, representatives of state government agriculture and health departments and consumer organizations. We worked together to develop this plan. Each of the stakeholder groups compromised to reach an agreement. Frankly, consumer advocates would prefer the simplicity of a single federal inspection force, but we made an effort to understand the concerns of the state governments and the smallest plants. I am surprised and disappointed that some members of the committee have now walked away from the product of our work together.
The plan agreed to by the Advisory Committee addresses problems in the existing law and will ensure a level of public health protection in state-inspected plants consistent with that in federally inspected plants. S. 1988 would write the provisions of the plan into law.
Consumer organizations will vigorously oppose this legislation if it is altered in a manner that undercuts these goals.
Further, my organization will be forced to oppose this legislation if the USDA, for any reason, restricts its program for pathogen reduction and the Salmonella testing that is basic to that program. The Salmonella testing program is threatened by court action
in Texas. This bill must clearly articulate the agency's ability to enforce the pathogen reduction standards in state inspected plants. In the absence of Salmonella testing, we would not be able to judge whether state-inspected meat really is just as clean and safe as meat from a federally inspected plant.
Please understand that, under FSIS regulations, each company gets to establish its own HACCP plan. In the absence of a federal standard based on public health protection, each company would be free to establish a pathogen level and standard of HACCP effectiveness based solely on its own preferences for quality and safety. Meat and poultry products bear the seal of the Department of Agriculture, a mark that tells the public the government has established a level of protection. We assume that mark means the product meets a standard based on public health requirements, not marketing convenience.
Over 90 percent of meat and poultry companies have complied with the pathogen reduction requirements and successfully met the Salmonella standard. I am unable to understand why the major industry trade associations are eager to abolish that testing, why they want to allow the least efficient and effective meat processor to set the standard for their industry.
The success to date of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP program not only reduces food-borne pathogens and illness, but also improves public confidence in the meat supply and encourages consumers to purchase and use meat and poultry products.
Last year beef consumption increased to the highest level in many years. This is due in part to an economy that supports increased food expenditures, but there is reason to believe it also results from the reports that ground beef is safer than it used to be.
Eliminating Salmonella performance standards and testing would endanger both public health and public confidence in the meat supply. It would almost surely diminish both the domestic and international market for American meat and poultry. That would be both bad public policy and bad business practice.