Comments to the U.S. Senate about Imported Foods

May 11, 1998

The Honorable Susan M. Collins
Chairman
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
United States Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs
Washington, DC 20510-6250

Dear Senator Collins:

      The National Consumers League (NCL), the nation's oldest nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on the systems and procedures used to ensure the safety of imported foods into the United States.

      We appreciate that there are considerable time constraints involved in your investigative process, thus, will keep our remarks brief and to the point. If you need further information during or after the hearings, NCL will be more than willing to provide it. The three issues to be addressed are as follows:

• Adequacy of domestic and international food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines with regard to imported foods;

• Importance of a science and risk-based import inspection system;

• Merits, if any, of various initiatives, such as requiring the use of (i) trace-back mechanisms to the farm of origin, (ii) country-of-origin labeling, and (iii) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.

• The level of inspection for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected plants is inadequate. With more than 50,000 plants that fall under FDA jurisdiction and approximately 700 inspectors, some plants are inspected at an average of once every ten years.

• The acceptable levels (performance standards) of Salmonella and Campylobacter for poultry, pork, beef, and eggs is too high. Poultry remains the major concern with Salmonella and Campylobacter, and USDA allowable levels of around 40% of product contaminated is too high.

• The disconnect between FDA inspected products and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected products is also a problem that should be addressed. A single food safety agency would better serve the needs of consumers to ensure that our food supply is safe and that all federal food safety oversight is coordinated.

• Imported food inspection--With the increasing reliance on imported foods, particularly produce, added emphasis on inspection of imported foods at the border, as well as at the source country needs to be strengthened. There is a problem with "easy access" ports and points of entry that are well-known for either being understaffed or more lenient in food inspection.

• Equivalence--American consumers expect, and the government should insist, that imported foods be produced under sanitary conditions and other good agricultural practices equivalent to our own. Understanding that we cannot mandate that sovereign countries adhere to our exact requirements for domestic production, processing, and distribution, we can, however, require that they operate systems that are at least equivalent--ensuring that they meet similar organoleptic and microbial/pathogen performance standards.

• Codes of Practice--NCL believes that certain rules of practice need to be clarified, particularly as they apply to the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and govern the refusal, suspension, or withdrawal of inspections services. Establishments should be provided better notice and certainty regarding FSIS enforcement activities; however, we do not believe that the improved procedural rights of establishments should take precedence over the consumers' rights to safe meat and poultry. (Plants should not be allowed to operate while an appeal of FSIS decision to withdraw is pending. The burden of showing product poses an "imminent hazard to health" should be on the plant, not government).

• FDA and USDA need mandatory recall authority and ability to impose civil penalties on processors.

• The recent outbreaks of Cyclospora, Crypto sporidium, E. Coli 0157:H7, and other pathogens from imported produce (i.e., Guatemalan raspberries, Mexican strawberries) highlights the need for an increased emphasis on science-based approaches, including microbial testing, for imported food.

• Inspectors cannot detect microbial contamination in food, thus, testing is essential. Further, additional emphasis should be placed on specific products, or products from specific countries that are at a higher risk of contamination due to the nature of the agricultural practices of that country or the nature of the product itself.

• Trace-back mechanisms--NCL supports trace-back mechanisms to the farm of origin. We feel that trace-back is vital to pinpointing the source of contamination, particularly for ground beef. Processing plants generally combine product from several suppliers, which makes it extremely difficult to determine which product, if any, is contaminated. Trace-back mechanisms will allow the contaminated product to be more easily identified. For produce, trace-back is equally important, as many pathogens have now "jumped" to produce (i.e., E. coli 0157:H7 on lettuce and alfalfa sprouts), and different batches of lettuce or sprouts may be combined at different points along the chain from farm to table.

• Country-of-origin labeling--Country-of-origin labeling does not directly prevent food-borne pathogens or contamination, yet it does give consumers more information about the products they are buying, and this may help to prevent food borne illness. It will allow consumers to avoid buying products from countries where sub-standard sanitation and inspection practices exist, or pesticide laws are not as stringent as ours. Examples of how country-of-origin labeling better informs consumers and possibly prevents food borne illness are the bans on British beef (risk of BSE), and the outbreaks of Cyclospora and Salmonella on Guatemalan raspberries and Mexican cantaloupes.

• HACCP--NCL strongly supports the HACCP system and feels that it is a modern solution to modern problems that exist in the food supply. However, we do have concerns that putting the onus on the companies to police themselves may have drawbacks if government agencies are not extremely vigilant. Federal inspectors need to remain in the plants at all times (USDA), conducting carcass-by-carcass inspection. Further, reliance on inspection of record-keeping alone (government inspection of records kept by plant employees) will not suffice. Finally, for HACCP to work, whistle-blower protections for plant employees must be put into place. If employees fear reprisal for calling attention to systems failures, and other problems, then they will not call attention to these problems which may go undetected, resulting in possible release of contaminated product to consumers.

• FDA needs to adopt HACCP systems that are more equivalent and compatible to those currently employed by USDA.

Respectfully submitted,

LINDA F. GOLODNER
President