September 21, 2000

The Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday heard from government and industry about the effectiveness of the nation's food safety program. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman told the committee that in plants that have completed hazardous analysis and critical control point (HACCP) program implementation, Salmonella has been reduced by more than half on chicken carcasses and by one-third on ground beef. And for every product regulated by USDA, at least 82% of plants have met or done better than the performance standard, he added.

"But HACCP alone isn't enough," Glickman continued. 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."

He said the department began by setting a performance standard for Salmonella. "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."

Performance standards were "a source of great controversy when the original HACCP rule was being debated and drafted," said Glickman. "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."

Glickman also called on Congress to meet the administration's budget requests. "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."

Congress also needs to "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."

Microbiological testing can provide important information to help produce safe foods, but only if the testing and any standards applied are science-based and used appropriately, the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) told the committee. "Microbiological standards are not a new concept, as they have been applied for decades in the processed food area," said Dane Bernard, NFPA's Vice President of Food Safety Programs. "These criteria have been a regular part of our food safety system, and they work. Further, microbiological criteria focused mainly on indicator organisms have been used routinely by the food industry on a voluntary basis for both raw and processed products as a guidepost to indicate that there may be operational or production problems deserving investigation."

Addressing USDA's HACCP rule, which established mandatory microbiological standards for Salmonella for raw meat, Bernard said NFPA believes that the goal of providing more focus on microbiological quality is laudable, but such standards "simply are not appropriate when used as a pass/fail regulatory tool. Such standards do not measure whether a product is safe, or whether the operation that produced the product is sanitary. Such microbiological measurements are a useful tool as an operational or production quality control indicator, but are not reliable as a definitive regulatory measure."

He said NFPA "feels that there are opportunities to utilize results of microbiological testing of raw products to achieve the desired result of improvement in the food supply within a HACCP system. The approach we suggest is one where results of microbiological testings are used to indicate when an in-depth investigation is warranted, rather than as a determination that a product or an establishment is non-conforming solely on the basis of test results."

The U.S. General Accounting Office also (GAO) testified on its preliminary findings in response to a report requested by committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to examine the allocation and utilization of federal food safety resources. The GAO testimony focused on areas of federal spending on food safety.

Lugar and Harkin also have asked for GAO to review USDA pilot programs underway to test alternative methods of meat and poultry inspection. Current federal meat and poultry inspection laws require that each carcass be inspected at slaughter by USDA officials. The pilot programs are testing a process that would put USDA inspectors in more of an oversight role.

Gary Weber, National Cattlemen's Beef Association executive director of regulatory affairs, told the committee that research and science-based standards are areas where improvement is needed. He asked that Congress consider providing additional dollars for food safety research; establishing a means of developing more science-based critical limits; creating a more rational regulatory framework consistent with the concepts of the HACCP meat inspection system, and enforce it in a more cooperative manner; and creating a technical assistance and education program to achieve food safety objectives.

The HACCP meat inspection system, implemented about three years ago, is a good idea but isn't the sole solution to ensuring a safe food supply, Weber said. "HACCP is a step in the right direction for beef safety," Weber said. "Individuals greatly influence food safety through actions in production, processing, transport, handling and cooking of meat products."