Order Code IB10082
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues
Updated November 4, 2004
Geoffrey S. Becker
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Current Standard Inspection and HACCP Systems
Authorities
State Inspection
Import Inspection
Basic Features of Inspection Systems
Coverage
Plant Sanitation
Slaughter Inspection
Processing Inspection
Pathogen Testing
Enforcement Authority
Meat Safety and BSE
Funding Issues
FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness
Other Legislative and Administrative Issues
Humane Slaughter
Equine Slaughter
Meat Traceability
HACCP-Related Legal Action
Pathogen Performance Standards
E. coli O157:H7
Listeria monocytogenes
Recall and Civil Penalty Proposals
LEGISLATION

---

IB10082
11-04-04
Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues
SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
inspection laws and regulations (H.R. 1003).
(USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most
In December 2003, USDA announced the
meat, poultry, and processed egg products for
first confirmed U.S. case of bovine spongi-
safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling.
form encephalopathy (BSE). On January 12,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is
2004, FSIS published interim rules banning
responsible for ensuring the safety of all other
potentially higher BSE-risk cattle parts and
foods, including seafood.
non-ambulatory (“downer”) cattle from food,
prohibiting the labeling as “meat” of mechani-
In the early 1990s, food safety officials
cally removed muscle tissue; and banning a
recognized that most foodborne illness cases
form of pre-slaughter stunning that can poten-
traced to meat and poultry products were
tially spread infective brain and nervous
being caused by naturally occurring microbio-
system tissue into the meat.
logical contamination that was not being
adequately addressed by the traditional, sight-,
Since January 12, any carcass tested for
smell-, and touch-based system of inspection.
BSE must be held until negative results are
Through the federal rule-making process,
received. In June 2004, USDA began a 12-18
FSIS developed and initiated the Hazard
month program to test 200,000-268,000 cattle
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
for BSE (compared with 20,000 in 2003).
system at all federally inspected slaughtering
and processing plants. HACCP regulations
The Administration has been criticized
require all firms to implement preventive
for its handling of some aspects of the BSE
actions at each point along the manufacturing
situation. For example, USDA officials ac-
chain where microbial contamination is likely
knowledged they had failed to follow proper
to occur. FSIS inspectors monitor the perfor-
rulemaking procedures in readmitting certain
mance of firms’ HACCP systems in addition
types of beef from Canada, which had its own
to performing traditional inspection under the
BSE case in early 2003. USDA’s BSE testing
existing statutes.
procedures also have come under criticism.
Despite data suggesting HACCP-related
The House-passed FY2005 agriculture
reductions in pathogen levels, periodic recalls
appropriation (H.R. 4766), cleared July 13,
of very large amounts of product continue to
2004, provides $824.7 million for FSIS. The
illustrate the difficulty of preventing contami-
Senate Appropriations Committee reported its
nation in processed products. Several bills
version (S. 2803) on September 14, 2004,
addressing aspects of this issue have been
recommending $823.8 million for FSIS. Full
introduced in the 108th Congress. These in-
Senate action is pending; meanwhile, FSIS is
clude proposals to give FSIS the authority to
operating through November 20 under a
(1) mandate recalls of suspected contaminated
continuing resolution (P.L. 108-309). Neither
products (H.R. 2273); (2) set and enforce
the House nor Senate version assumes adop-
performance standards for foodborne patho-
tion of the Administration proposal for new
gens under HACCP (S. 1103/H.R. 2203); and
inspection user fees of $124 million (which
(3) impose civil penalties for violations of the
requires separate authorizing legislation).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10082
11-04-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
USDA programs, including meat inspection under the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), currently are operating through November 20 under a continuing resolution.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported a FY2005 agricultural appropriation (S.
2803) on September 14. The measure, which recommends $823.8 million for FSIS, has not
yet cleared the full Senate. The House version (H.R. 4766) for FY2005, passed by the House
on July 14, provides $824.7 million for FSIS.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Current Standard Inspection and HACCP Systems
FSIS carries out its duties with total staff of nearly 10,000, and an annual appropriation
of approximately $800 million. In addition, FSIS uses revenue from fees paid by the packing
industry for overtime (above three shifts) and holiday inspection services, and by private
laboratories that apply for FSIS certification to perform official meat testing and sampling
(they originally were authorized in 1919). Revenue from the fees amounts to more than $100
million annually in additional program support. More than 7,500 of FSIS’s employees,
roughly 1,000 of them veterinarians, are at some 6,200 plants and import stations nationwide.
Traditional inspection under the original statutes comprises constant organoleptic
inspection (for appearance, odor, and feel) at slaughter operations and daily inspection of
sample products and operations at processing plants. In the early 1990s, following years of
debate over how to respond to mounting evidence that invisible, microbiological
contamination on meat and poultry posed greater public health risks than visible defects (the
focus of traditional inspection methods), FSIS began to add testing for pathogenic bacteria
on various species and products to its inspection system.
In 1995, under existing statutes, FSIS published a proposed rule to systematize these
program changes in a mandatory program called the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) system. In this system, hazards are identified and risks are analyzed in each
phase of production, “critical control points” for preventing such hazards are identified and
monitored, and corrective actions are taken when necessary. Record keeping and verification
are used to ensure that the system is working. FSIS published the final rule in 1996, and
since January 2000 all slaughter and processing operations are required to have HACCP
plans in place. HACCP is intended to operate as an adjunct to the traditional methods of
inspection, which still are mandatory under the original statutes.
Authorities. The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), requires USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses brought into any
plant to be slaughtered and processed into products for human consumption. The 1957
Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), made poultry
inspection mandatory for any domesticated birds intended for use as human food. The
current list of included species is chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites (ostrich,
emu, and rhea), and squabs (pigeons up to one month old).
CRS-1

---

IB10082
11-04-04
FSIS also offers voluntary, fee-for-service inspection for buffalo, antelope, reindeer, elk,
migratory water fowl, game birds, and rabbits, which is authorized under the Agricultural
Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1621). These so-called “exotic” meat species are regulated by the
FDA (under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) if they are not
inspected under the voluntary FSIS program. FDA has jurisdiction over meat products from
exotic species in interstate commerce, even if they bear the USDA inspection mark.
In May 1995, the authority for processed egg inspection was transferred from USDA’s
Agricultural Marketing Service to FSIS. The Egg Products Inspection Act, as amended (21
U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), is the authority under which FSIS assures the safety of liquid, frozen,
and dried egg products, domestic and imported, and the safe disposition of damaged and dirty
eggs. FDA holds regulatory authority over shell eggs used in restaurants and sold in stores.
State Inspection. Twenty-eight states currently have their own meat and/or poultry
inspection programs covering about 2,100 small or very small establishments. The states run
the programs cooperatively with FSIS, which provides up to 50% of the funds for operating
them, or about $50 million annually. A state program operating under a cooperative
agreement with FSIS must demonstrate that its system is equivalent to federal inspection.
However, meat and poultry products produced under state inspection are limited to intrastate
commerce only. About half of the states have discontinued their inspection systems for meat
or poultry (or both). In these states FSIS has assumed responsibility for inspection at the
formerly state-inspected plants, although actual inspection is performed by state personnel.
Import Inspection. FSIS conducts overseas evaluations to determine that imports
from foreign countries are processed under equivalent inspection systems; agency officials
also verify equivalency by visiting various foreign slaughtering and processing operations.
A plant seeking to export meat or poultry to the United States must first receive FSIS
certification. At U.S. ports of entry, meat and poultry import shipments must first clear
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspection to assure that only shipments from
countries free of certain animal and human disease hazards are allowed entry (this function
was transferred to DHS from APHIS). After DHS inspection, imported meat and poultry
shipments go to nearby FSIS inspection facilities for final clearance into interstate commerce.
Basic Features of Inspection Systems.
Coverage. FSIS’s legal inspection responsibilities do not begin until animals arrive
at slaughterhouses, and they generally end once products leave processing plants. Most of
the very large slaughter/packer firms also have on-site rendering operations to process certain
edible by-products from inspected carcasses (chiefly tallow). These operations are regulated
by FSIS under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and are subject to the same sanitation and
HACCP requirements as the packing plant. (FDA regulates packer/renderer and independent
rendering operations that handle non-edible by-products from slaughtering and processing.)
Also, certain custom slaughter and most retail store and restaurant activities are exempt from
federal inspection; however, they may be under state inspection.
Plant Sanitation. No meat or poultry establishment can slaughter or process products
for human consumption until FSIS approves in advance its plans and specifications for the
premises, equipment, and operating procedures. Once this approval is granted and operations
begin, the plant must continue to follow a detailed set of rules that cover such things as
CRS-2

---

IB10082
11-04-04
proper lighting, ventilation, and water supply; cleanliness of equipment and structural
features; and employee sanitation procedures.
Plants are required under the HACCP rule to have a HACCP plan for their slaughter
and/or processing operations. Simply put, this means that at each point in the process where
contamination could occur, called a “critical control point,” the plant must have a plan to
control it, and must document and maintain records. USDA inspectors check the records to
verify the plant’s compliance. (Under HACCP regulations, all operations must have site-
specific standard operating procedures (SOPs) for sanitation).
Slaughter Inspection. FSIS inspects all meat and poultry animals to look for signs
of disease, contamination, and other abnormal conditions, both before and after slaughter
(“antemortem” and “postmortem,” respectively), on a continuous basis — meaning that no
animal may be slaughtered and dressed unless an inspector has examined it. One or more
federal inspectors are on the line during all hours the plant is operating. Plants pay user fees
to have an inspector on duty on overtime and holiday shifts.
Processing Inspection. The inspection statutes give the Secretary discretion to
determine how often a USDA inspector must visit facilities that produce processed products
like hot dogs, lunch meat, prepared dinners, and soups. Under current regulations, processing
plants that are visited once every day by an FSIS inspector are considered to be under
continuous inspection in keeping with the laws. Inspectors monitor operations, check
sanitary conditions, examine ingredient levels and packaging, review records, verify HACCP
processes, and conduct statistical sampling and testing of products during their on-site visits.
Pathogen Testing. The HACCP rule also mandates two types of microbial testing:
for generic E. coli and for Salmonella. Levels of these two organisms are indicators of
conditions that either suppress or encourage the spread of such potentially dangerous bacteria
as Campylobactor and E. coli O157:H7, as well as Salmonella itself. Test results help FSIS
inspectors verify that plant sanitation procedures are working, and to identify and assist
plants whose process controls may be underperforming. In the initial years of HACCP
implementation, plants that failed three consecutive Salmonella tests could have their USDA
inspectors withdrawn. This would effectively shut down the plant until the problem could
be remedied. A court ruling in 2000, upheld on appeal in late 2001, made such enforcement
illegal (see below). Nonetheless, FSIS inspectors still test samples for Salmonella and use
the results as one of a number of indicators of plant performance.
Enforcement Authority. FSIS has a range of enforcement tools to prevent
adulterated or mislabeled meat and poultry from reaching consumers. On a day-to-day basis,
if plant conditions or procedures are found to be unsanitary, an FSIS inspector can, by
refusing to perform inspection, temporarily halt the plant’s operation until the problem is
corrected. FSIS can condemn contaminated, adulterated, and misbranded products, or parts
of them, and detain them so they cannot progress down the marketing chain. Other tools
include warning letters for minor violations; requests that companies voluntarily recall a
potentially unsafe product; a court-ordered product seizure if such a request is denied; and
referral to federal attorneys for criminal prosecution. Prosecutions under certain conditions
may lead to the withdrawal of federal inspection from offending firms or individuals, which
results in plant closure.
CRS-3

---

IB10082
11-04-04
Meat Safety and BSE
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a slowly progressive, incurable disease
affecting the central nervous system of cattle. It was first diagnosed in Britain in 1986.
Scientists consider BSE to be related to similar diseases, called transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs), that occur in other species. Investigators in the British BSE
outbreak connected the use in cattle feeds of animal protein from TSE-infected sheep with
the appearance of BSE in cattle. In 1997, European scientists determined that there was a
possible link between consumption of infected tissue from BSE cattle and an outbreak in
humans of a newer variant of a fatal brain disease called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD)
that had begun in Europe in the late 1980s.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is one of the three federal agencies
primarily responsible for keeping BSE out of the food supply. The other two agencies
involved are USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the FDA
(part of the Department of Health and Human Services). The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) also play a role regarding public health protection. (For more in-
depth coverage of BSE and related livestock industry and public health issues, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress; and CRS Report
RL32199, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): Current and Proposed Safeguards.)
APHIS, which (among other things) is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from
foreign diseases, in 1989 imposed a ban on the import of all live ruminants from countries
where BSE is known to exist. In 1991, APHIS banned the import of rendered by-products
from ruminants, and then it banned, as of December 2000, the import of all rendered animal
protein products (whether from ruminants or not). After a cow with BSE was announced in
Canada in May 2003, APHIS banned all ruminants and products from that country, but in
August 2003 it announced it was permitting some products (notably boneless beef from cattle
under 30 months) after determining that they were low-risk. In November 2003, APHIS
proposed a rule to allow imports of primarily younger live ruminants and products from
“minimal risk” regions, including Canada. A final rule was expected sometime this year.
Meanwhile, on April 19, 2004, APHIS posted on its website but did not publicize a
decision to add bone-in beef from under-30-month cattle to the list of permitted imports. On
April 26, a federal judge in Montana issued a temporary restraining order banning these
additional imports, citing concerns about food safety and USDA’s failure to follow proper
rulemaking procedures. By May, USDA acknowledged that it had not followed such
procedures in allowing some 7.3 million pounds of certain types of Canadian beef products
into the United States that were not on the list of so-called “low-risk” beef products USDA
first publicized widely in August 2003. The 7.3 million pounds were among a total of 518.6
million pounds of Canadian beef that the United States has admitted from September 2003
through April 2004. It also promised not to permit any of these additional types of beef from
Canada until after it issues a final rule on what it proposed in November 2003 (see above).
FDA, which regulates animal feed ingredients domestically, banned the feeding of most
mammalian proteins to ruminants in August 1997. Until recently, periodic surveys indicated
less than full compliance with the regulations. A February 2002 Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study reported that 364 out of 10,576 firms inspected by FDA (out of at least
11,741 total firms potentially handling ruminant material) were still out of compliance with
CRS-4

---

IB10082
11-04-04
FDA’s labeling, record keeping, and commingling requirements. In July 2003, however,
FDA reported that compliance had reached 99%.
Nevertheless, the animal feed ban is likely to be a focus of efforts to improve U.S. BSE
safeguards. The FDA had announced on January 26, 2004, that it would tighten inspections
rules affecting feed mills and renderers that manufacture ingredients used in feeds. On July
14, 2004, FDA took tentative steps to do so with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR), in which it said it was considering a ban on specified risk materials (SRMs, which
are designated higher-risk cattle parts such as brains and spinal cords) from all animal feeds.
Industry groups said they were pleased that the agency was proceeding carefully but
concerned about compliance costs. Consumer advocates argued that rulemaking was moving
too slowly. The July 14 ANPR was issued jointly with USDA and sought comments on a
number of additional BSE preventive steps now under consideration.
Prior to the appearance of the first U.S. case of BSE in December 2003, FSIS’s role in
keeping the disease out of the food supply was to put the agency’s inspection force on alert
to detect and divert from processing any cattle showing suspicious clinical symptoms, and
to contact an APHIS inspector to evaluate the animal and dispatch a brain tissue sample to
the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for testing. USDA (APHIS) by
2003 was testing approximately 20,000 cattle annually for BSE, focusing particularly on
high-risk animals, including downers (animals that cannot walk at slaughter establishments),
those that die on farms, older animals, and those with signs of neurological distress. On
March 15, 2004, the Secretary announced a new 12- to 18-month surveillance program to test
as many as 268,000 or more mostly higher-risk animals, which got under way in June 2004.
USDA has approved various “rapid tests” for the initial BSE screening in designated
laboratories around the country. If these tests indicate any samples may be BSE-positive, the
samples are to be forwarded to Ames for confirmation through a more sophisticated test.
USDA’s aim is to measure the extent, if any, of BSE in U.S. herds; officials assert it is not
a safety assurance program per se. As of early November, more than 99,000 tests had been
performed, none positive for the disease. (Test results are posted on the agency website.)
USDA in April 2004 denied a request by a private meat company, Creekstone Farms,
to use a rapid test to screen all of its cattle for BSE as a way to re-establish the firm’s foreign
markets lost after the U.S. BSE finding. USDA has argued that such “100% testing” is
unscientific, would imply falsely that meat from BSE-tested animals is safer than that from
untested cattle, and would undermine government-to-government negotiations to reopen
markets. Creekstone has argued that it would test merely to satisfy marketing demands.
On July 14, 2004, the House Government Reform and Agriculture Committees held a
joint hearing on BSE surveillance. USDA’s Inspector General (IG) testified that USDA
officials erred — but did not engage in intentional misconduct or knowingly provide
misleading information — when they failed to test a suspicious cow for BSE in Texas in
April 2004, and when they characterized the Washington BSE cow as nonambulatory in
December 2003. The IG also testified on weaknesses in USDA’s BSE surveillance and ways
to strengthen it.
Many of the policy changes announced since the U.S. BSE discovery already had been
under discussion among FSIS officials, the meat industry, and scientists. Also, FSIS already
CRS-5

---

IB10082
11-04-04
had taken some steps intended to lessen the risk of BSE-infected tissue entering the human
food supply. In 2003 the agency announced a regulatory sampling program to test meat that
was mechanically removed from bones to ensure that no spinal cord tissue is present (known
as advanced meat recovery, or AMR), as this tissue would carry the risk of BSE. FSIS also
was investigating the practice of air-injection stunning at slaughter as a risk factor.
The new regulations that Secretary Veneman announced on December 30, 2003, were
published as interim final rules in the January 12, 2004, Federal Register, and became
effective immediately. Among the actions to bolster U.S. protection systems:
! Downer (nonambulatory) cattle are no longer allowed into federally
inspected or state-inspected slaughter and processing facilities.
! Cattle selected for testing cannot be marked as “inspected and passed”
until confirmation is received that they have tested negative for BSE.
! Specified risk materials (SRM), which include the skull, brain,
trigeminal ganglia, eyes, vertebral column, spinal column, and dorsal
root ganglia of cattle over 30 months of age, and the small intestine of
cattle of all ages, are now prohibited from the human food supply.
! Slaughter facilities are required to develop and implement procedures
to remove, segregate, and dispose of SRM and make information
readily available for review by FSIS inspection personnel.
! SRM from cattle 30 months or older cannot be in a product labeled as
“meat” if derived from advanced meat recovery (AMR) technology.
! Mechanically separated meat may not be used for human food.
! Air injection stunning is banned, to ensure that portions of the animal
brain are not dislocated into the carcass.
In the past, some lawmakers, animal health and food safety experts, and livestock
industry groups have expressed concern that bills to ban downers from federal inspection
could result in FSIS inspectors and APHIS veterinarians being unable to obtain and test
animals at greatest risk for BSE (i.e., downers and diseased cattle dying on farms).
Funding Issues
From time to time in the past, FSIS has had difficulty in sufficiently staffing its service
obligations to the meat and poultry industries. Usually a combination of factors causes these
shortages, including new technologies that increase plant production speeds and volume,
insufficient appropriated funds to hire additional inspectors at times of unexpected increases
in demand for inspections, problems in finding qualified people to work in dangerous or
unpleasant environments or at remote locations, etc. These staffing problems have been
exacerbated by the addition of HACCP requirements on top of the traditional carcass-by-
carcass inspection duties. In order to monitor the staffing situation more closely, Congress
included language in the conference report to accompany the FY2000 USDA appropriations
law (P.L. 106-78), requiring FSIS to prepare a quarterly report on budget execution, staffing
levels, and staffing needs (these are available on the FSIS website under “Communications
to Congress”; see [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/congress/congress.htm#Annual]).
In order to address staffing problems, most administrations over the past 20 years have
proposed in their annual budget requests to charge the meat-packing industry new user fees
CRS-6

---

IB10082
11-04-04
sufficient to cover the entire cost or a portion of federal inspection services. The primary
rationale for more comprehensive user fees has been that resources would then be adequate
to hire new inspectors as necessary. USDA economists estimate that the cost passed on to
consumers from such a fee would be no more than one cent per pound. Congressional
appropriators have rejected new user fee proposals every year, stating that the safety of the
food supply is a legitimate responsibility of the government. In addition, some Members
have argued that the large meat recalls that have occurred since HACCP was implemented
illustrate why the government should retain taxpayer-funded regulatory oversight.
The Bush Administration’s initial release of the FY2005 budget (February 2004)
reiterated user fee proposals made in FY2003 and FY2004 to increase the industry’s
reimbursement for FSIS inspection beyond one shift per day. The Administration’s rationale
is that the regular working day should be considered standard inspection, and any services
provided beyond that time should be considered additional, hence subject to a higher fee
schedule. Congressional appropriators traditionally have rejected these proposals, and in
recent years they have included report language stating that they will not consider offsetting
FSIS appropriations with greater revenue from user fees unless authorizing legislation has
first been passed. According to testimony presented by Dr. Elsa Murano, USDA Under
Secretary for Food Safety, at a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee’s Agriculture
Subcommittee on March 18, 2004, the Department sent proposed legislation authorizing
expanded user fees to Congress in August 2003. To date, no Member has introduced the bill,
and new fees are not assumed in the FY2005 appropriation (see below).
The Administration’s FY2005 budget request proposed an $838.7 million appropriation
for meat, poultry, and egg inspections (before offsets for any expanded user fees). It assumed
that an additional $113 million in revenue from existing user fees will be available for
program support. Dr. Murano testified that FSIS would allocate about half of the $59 million
proposed FSIS increase to the basic inspection program, including hiring about 80 more
employees, and continuing to improve enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act. The balance of the increase would support several components of a new initiative on
defense of U.S. agriculture and the food supply, including improving biosurveillance and
expanding the network of federal and state diagnostic labs and their electronic data-sharing
capability. The FY2005 budget also proposed a 50% increase in funds to provide formal
classroom training to all new inspectors and supplemental training to the current workforce
in the field.
On July 13, 2004, the House passed an agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 4766) for
FY2005 that recommends $824.7 million for FSIS in FY2005. H.R. 4766 provides the
following specific FSIS increases for FY2005 as requested by the Administration: $17.3
million for front-line inspectors and humane slaughter enforcement; $3 million for BSE
surveillance (see the section below on BSE funding); $7.2 million for inspector training; and
$15.5 million for increased pay costs. Also in H.R. 4766 is an increase of $9.6 million for
food defense activities, including $2.5 million for biosurveillance, $3.6 million for the Food
Emergency Response Network, $3 million for the network’s data systems support, and
$500,000 for laboratory equipment and additional training. The bill also includes $2.7
million for Codex Alimentarius activities, $1.65 million for outsourcing microbiological
testing, and a $7.7 million cut in information technology funds as requested in the budget.
CRS-7

---

IB10082
11-04-04
The Senate committee version (S. 2803), reported September 14, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-
340), sets FSIS funding at $823.8 million. It specifies the following increases for FY2005:
$12.3 million for front line inspection costs to bring total FSIS slaughter inspectors to 7,690;
$7 million for entry-level inspector training; $3 million to improve BSE surveillance; and
$11.75 million for food defense activities including $2.5 million for biosurveillance, $7
million for the Food Emergency Response Network, $1.25 million for enhanced laboratory
capabilities, and $1 million for biosecurity training. The Senate bill provides an increase of
$105,000 (to a total of about $2.7 million) for Codex activities; and of $350,000 (to no less
than $2 million) for continuing the microbiological baseline studies for nine commodities.
Neither the House nor Senate version assumes adoption of new user fee proposals.
Because the regular FY2005 appropriation has not cleared Congress, FSIS programs are
operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 108-309) through November 20, 2004.
FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness
Since September 11, 2001, concern has been voiced about the potential for terrorist
attacks on the U.S. agricultural base and food supply through intentional contamination by
organisms or chemicals injurious to crop, animal, or human health. FSIS received $15
million in funds for increased oversight of meat and poultry safety in the Defense emergency
supplemental act (P.L. 107-117, enacted January 10, 2002) which allocated the remaining
$20 billion from the September 11, 2001, disaster relief act (P.L. 107-38). The Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (P.L. 107-188) authorized an
additional $15 million in FY2002 and such sums as necessary in subsequent years to
strengthen FSIS’s inspection force. The FY2004 agriculture appropriations conference report
(H.Rept. 108-401) allocated a portion of the increased appropriation to hire additional
inspectors and increase laboratory testing for pathogens causing foodborne illness.
FSIS’s Food Biosecurity Action Team (F-BAT) has conducted mock exercises to
improve response time and communication in emergency situations. FSIS made security
guidelines available to food processors in August 2002 (accessible on the FSIS website).
The Food Threat Preparedness Network (PrepNet) is a joint FSIS/FDA group that works on
threat prevention and emergency response.
The FY2005 budget request for FSIS would designate two-thirds of a proposed $59
million total increase for FSIS for bioterrorism preparedness activities: $23.5 million for
detecting and responding to intentional contamination of the food supply; $10 million for
expanding the number of federal, state, and local labs currently participating in the Food
Emergency Response Network (FERN) from 60 (currently) to 100; $3.6 million for linking
more of the FERN labs into an electronic information exchange system (eLEXNET); $2.3
million for purchasing laboratory equipment to improve testing capacity; and $1.9 million
for further bio-security training for FSIS inspectors. The Congressional vehicle for this
funding has been the FY2005 USDA appropriation (H.R. 4766; S. 2803).
Other Legislative and Administrative Issues
Humane Slaughter. Under provisions in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
603(b), 610(b), 620(a)), FSIS inspectors are responsible for enforcing the Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901-1906). This act requires that all livestock (but not poultry)
CRS-8

---

IB10082
11-04-04
be rendered unconscious before slaughter. FSIS inspectors have the authority to stop
slaughter lines and order plant employees to take corrective actions to ensure compliance
with the act. Legislative proposals to include poultry under the act were introduced in the
102nd through 104th Congresses, but none was acted upon.
Until recently, the issue of humane slaughter has been closely connected with the issue
of humane treatment of downer cattle at federally inspected slaughtering facilities and other
locations. During action on the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill, lawmakers debated
amendments that reflected the content of companion bills in the House and Senate (the
Downed Animal Protection Act; H.R. 2519/S. 1298). These would have amended the 2002
farm act to require that downed animals at stockyards, market agencies, livestock dealer
facilities, and slaughter facilities be euthanized immediately and barred from federal
inspection. The Senate adopted the downed animal provision in its funding bill, but it was
dropped in conference. The January 2004 USDA regulatory ban on slaughtering downers
for human food was adopted in response to BSE concerns, but some lawmakers remain
interested in writing the ban into law.
Concerns persist about FSIS enforcement of compliance with the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act (HMSA) regarding healthy, ambulatory animals. These concerns arose in
early 2002 when media reports alleged widespread violations of the act, which prompted a
number of administrative and congressional actions.
In February 2002, FSIS placed 17 veterinarians in its district offices, specifically to
monitor humane slaughter and handling procedures and to report to headquarters on
compliance. The conference agreement on the 2002 farm act contains a provision expressing
the sense of Congress that FSIS should fully enforce the HMSA and report the number of
violations to Congress annually. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriation act, Congress
designated $5 million of FSIS funding specifically for hiring 50 additional inspectors to
oversee the agency’s compliance, and language in the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations
Act directed FSIS to continue this process.
USDA’s FY2005 budget request would provide another $5 million to this issue. The
Senate committee report accompanying the USDA appropriation (S. 2803; S.Rept. 108-340)
contains extensive language on FSIS enforcement HMSA, noting, among other things, that
$4 million has been provided to incorporate the agency’s Humane Animal Tracking system
into its field computer systems, and that the committee has recommended funding to
continue 63 staff to oversee FSIS compliance with the act.
On January 31, 2004, GAO released a report to Congress stating that it had found it
difficult to assess FSIS’s performance on enforcing the act because of incomplete and
inconsistent inspection records (GAO-04-247, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA
Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges). GAO also reported
that inspectors’ knowledge of regulatory requirements varied, documentation did not
consistently reflect the scope and severity of incidents, and enforcement action varied
depending upon whether it was one animal or several that had not been rendered completely
unconscious by stunning. FSIS issued new guidelines to its field personnel in November
2003, and indicated it would follow up on GAO’s recommendations for improvement.
CRS-9

---

IB10082
11-04-04
On September 9, 2004, the agency published a Federal Register notice outlining a
“systematic approach” to meeting humane slaughter requirements. FSIS said it was
publishing the notice “because there has been considerable congressional and public interest
in the humane treatment of animals, and because the number of humane noncompliance
incidents documented by FSIS in establishments has increased over the last three years.”
Equine Slaughter. Some 50,000 or more U.S. horses are slaughtered each year for
human food, mainly for European and Asian markets. Pending bills (H.R. 857 and S. 2352)
would ban such slaughter. Debate has focused on the acceptability of this practice, and
whether existing facilities could provide sufficient care for such horses if they no longer went
for human food. (For background see CRS Report RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention
Bills and Issues).
Meat Traceability. USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) on September 30,
2003, released an audit report on a 2002 meat recall by Con Agra (see “E. coli O157:H7,”
below). The report recommends “that FSIS reassess its management control process over
... recall operations ... by ensuring that ground beef is traceable from manufacturing to point-
of-sale and that adequate production records are maintained to facilitate traceback.” Several
bills intended to create an animal ID and tracking system have been introduced in the second
session of the 108th Congress since the discovery of the first U.S. case of BSE in December
2003. The issue has also been debated in connection with protecting against bioterrorism;
verifying the U.S. origin of live cattle and meat products for export; and facilitating recalls
to prevent or contain foodborne illness outbreaks, among other things. Supporters of animal
ID and meat traceability point out that most major meat-exporting countries already have
domestic animal ID systems. The U.S. meat industry argued in the past that such a system
would not be based on sound science, and would be technically unworkable. However, since
the domestic BSE diagnosis in December 2003, the industry, USDA, and Congress have been
moving toward adoption of a national animal ID (but not meat traceability) system, focused
on animal disease control rather than food safety per se. Among other issues are cost, need
for a mandatory rather than voluntary system, and privacy of records. (For more information
on this subject, see CRS Report RL32012, Animal Identification and Meat Traceability.)
HACCP-Related Legal Action. In December 1999, FSIS attempted to withdraw
inspectors from a processing firm in Texas whose ground beef products had repeatedly
violated Salmonella levels. However, the firm obtained a federal court injunction to prevent
FSIS’s action. The firm argued that (1) high Salmonella levels did not indicate the presence
of other dangerous pathogens, (2) the Salmonella came in with the product from the
slaughterhouse and thus could not be removed, and (3) the plant had never failed to meet
standards for sanitation. In May 2000, the federal judge ruled that the meat and poultry
inspection statutes did not give FSIS authority to use the Salmonella standard as the basis for
withdrawing inspection.
In 2001, USDA asked an appeals court to overturn the ruling. However, in December
2001, the appeals court upheld the district court’s decision. Shortly afterwards, Secretary
Veneman issued a statement saying that although the decision limited FSIS’s ability to
enforce performance standards, it did not affect the agency’s ability to use the standards as
part of the verification of plants’ sanitation and HACCP plans. In late July 2002, FSIS
issued a notice to its employees instituting detailed procedures for reporting and taking action
on failed generic E. coli tests in slaughtering plants, and on failed Salmonella tests in
CRS-10

---

IB10082
11-04-04
slaughter and grinding operations. The notice requires more documentation of test
information, faster and more standardized notification of higher level managers, a procedural
schedule for corrective actions, and instructions on what steps FSIS inspectors are to take if
the corrective actions do not result in a negative test. The notice can be found on the FSIS
website at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/].
The appeals court ruling supports the arguments of those who say that pathogen testing
results should not be a basis for enforcement actions until scientists can determine what
constitutes an unsafe level of Salmonella in ground meat. Consumer groups and other
supporters of mandatory testing and microbiological standards, as well as of increased
enforcement powers, have used the case to bolster their argument for moving ahead quickly
with amending the meat and poultry inspection statutes to specify microbiological standards.
Pathogen Performance Standards. In part because of the court decision barring
the use of Salmonella testing as an enforcement trigger, Senator Harkin in recent years has
introduced bills to add language to the inspection laws clarifying the Secretary’s authority
to set enforceable performance standards. On May 22, 2003, he reintroduced the Meat and
Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act (S. 1103; H.R. 2203, Eshoo). These bills
would require the Secretary to set performance standards for the top illness-causing
pathogens in raw meat after a three-year survey and evaluation period. The bill would
enforce the standards by not permitting violative products to be labeled “USDA Inspected
and Passed,” thus preventing them from being sold for human consumption in any form.
The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, established
in 1988 to provide scientific advice to the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and
Human Services on public health issues, concluded in a report issued in October 2002 that
“performance standards that meet the principles as outlined in this document [i.e., standards
that are based on quantitative rather than qualitative data] are valuable and useful tools to
define an expected level of [pathogen] control in one or more steps in the process.” (The
report is at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/nacmcf/rep_stand.htm].)
A second review of microbiological performance standards, Scientific Criteria to
Ensure Safe Food, was released in late 2003 by the Institute of Medicine in collaboration
with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The report is
available at [http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10690.html]. Among many recommendations, this
newest report calls on Congress to “grant the regulatory agencies clear authority to establish,
implement, and enforce food safety criteria, including performance standards, and the
flexibility needed within the administrative process to update these criteria.” The report also
makes seven specific recommendations for FSIS to take to improve the safety of meat and
poultry products. Among these are (1) conduct surveys to evaluate changes over time in the
microbiological status of certain components of processed meats and poultry; (2) expand E.
coli O157:H7 testing, identify control points for E. coli O157:H7 back to the farm level, and
inform consumers that even irradiated ground beef must be cooked to a temperature that kills
the pathogen; (3) greatly expand generic E. coli criteria for, and Salmonella performance
standards for, beef trim intended for grinding.
E. coli O157:H7. In October 1994, FSIS began testing samples of raw ground beef
for E. coli O157:H7 and declared that any such product found with this pathogen would be
considered adulterated — the first time a foodborne pathogen on raw product was declared
CRS-11

---

IB10082
11-04-04
an adulterant under the meat inspection law. Industry groups immediately asked a Texas
federal court for a preliminary injunction to halt this effort, on the grounds that it was not
promulgated through appropriate rulemaking procedures, was arbitrary and capricious, and
exceeded USDA’s regulatory authority under law. In December 1994, the court denied the
groups’ request, and no appeal was filed, leaving the program in place. FSIS has taken
roughly 60,700 samples since the program began; to date, 246 samples have tested positive.
In June and July 2002, 42 people in nine states were sickened by eating ground beef
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, due to delays in tracing the tainted meat back to the
original packer (Con Agra) and in having the company issue a recall. The recall, announced
July 19, 2002, applied to about 19 million pounds of beef trim and fresh and frozen ground
beef products produced as far back as April. Only about 3 million pounds were recovered.
In September 2002, FSIS issued a press release stating that “[t]he scientific data show
that E. coli O157:H7 is more prevalent than previously estimated,” and in October 2002 the
agency published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 62325) requiring manufacturers
of all raw beef products (not just ground beef) to reassess their HACCP plans and add control
points for E. coli O157:H7 if the reassessment showed that the pathogen was a likely hazard
in the facility’s operations. The changes at large operations were required to be complete by
December 6, 2002; small plants had until February 4, 2003, and very small plants until April
7, 2003. FSIS inspectors are to verify that corrective steps have been taken and conduct
random testing of all beef processing plants, including all grinders (some previously had been
exempted). In addition, the agency is issuing guidelines to grinding plants advising them to
increase the level of pathogen testing by plant employees, and to avoid mixing products from
different suppliers. In September 2003, FSIS released data showing that through August 31,
2003, 0.32% of samples tested positive compared with 0.78% in 2002 and 0.84% in 2001.
On September 30, 2003, OIG released an audit report on the 2002 recall, concluding
that several FSIS management weaknesses, as well as mistakes on the part of Con Agra,
contributed to the problems that arose. The report makes several recommendations for
actions FSIS should take. Chief among these is a reiteration of one that the OIG made in
2000; namely, “that FSIS needs to revisit its authorities and establish operating procedures
to address the weaknesses disclosed in this audit.” Those weaknesses concern data collection
and analysis, enforcement actions for repeat violations, performance standards for inspectors,
and risk-based performance measures for the E. coli O157:H7 testing program, among
others. In response to the OIG report, the FSIS Administrator issued a press release on
October 2, 2003, detailing the changes the agency has already made in the program and citing
recent data showing a reduction in the number of positive test results.
A CDC report issued on April 29, 2004, indicated that the incidence of infections
caused by E. coli 0157:H7 had declined significantly between 1996 and 2003, with much of
that decline occurring in 2002-2003. USDA and meat industry officials credited their
pathogen reduction efforts for the decrease; consumer advocates questioned whether the data
reflected a sustained reduction or merely year-to-year variability.
Listeria monocytogenes. In February 2001, FSIS published a proposed rule to set
performance standards that meat and poultry processing firms would have to meet to reduce
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), a pathogen in ready-to-eat foods. The proposal
covered over 100 different types of dried, salt-cured, fermented, and cooked or processed
CRS-12

---

IB10082
11-04-04
meat and poultry products. Lm causes an estimated 2,500 illnesses and 499 deaths each year
(from listeriosis), and is still the primary cause of meat and poultry product recalls.
The proposed regulations raised a controversy among affected constituencies. The meat
industry argued that the benefits to consumers would not outweigh the cost to packers of
additional testing. Representatives of food manufacturers criticized the proposed regulations
for covering some categories of foods too broadly and heavily, while not covering some other
high-risk foods at all (such as milk, which is under FDA jurisdiction). Consumer groups said
that the proposed rule would not require enough testing in small processing plants and that
products not tested for Lm should not be labeled “ready-to-eat” because they would still
require cooking to be 100% safe. The proposed rule has not been finalized.

Interest in the Listeria issue increased significantly after October 2002, when Pilgrim’s
Pride Corporation recalled a record-breaking 27.5 million pounds of poultry lunch meats for
possible Lm contamination after a July 2002 outbreak of listeriosis in New England. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed 46 cases of the disease, with 7 deaths
and 3 stillbirths or miscarriages. The recall covered products made as long ago as May 2002,
and officials stated that very little of the meat was still available to be recovered.
In December 2002, FSIS issued a directive to inspection program personnel giving new
and specific instructions for monitoring processing plants that produce hot dogs and deli
meats. (The guidelines can be found on the FSIS website at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov]). In
June 2003, FSIS announced the publication of an interim final rule to reduce Listeria in
ready-to-eat meats. Rather than set performance standards, as the February 2001 proposed
rule would have, the new regulation requires plants that process RTE foods to add control
measures specific to Listeria to their HACCP and sanitation plans, and to verify their
effectiveness by testing and disclosing the results to FSIS. FSIS inspectors will conduct
random tests to verify establishments’ programs. Plants will be subject to different degrees
of FSIS verification testing depending upon what type of control steps they adopt in their
HACCP and sanitation plans (see the FSIS website for more details on the rule).
On June 5, 2003, Senator Clinton introduced a bill (S. 1187) to require ready-to-eat
foods not processed under a science-based Lm control plan to bear a label advising pregnant
women and other at-risk consumers how to handle them so as to avoid contracting listeriosis.
Recall and Civil Penalty Proposals. Bills to enhance the effectiveness of meat
and poultry recalls have been introduced in successive congresses. In the 108th Congress,
Representative Udall reintroduced the Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act (H.R. 2273),
which would authorize FSIS to recall suspected contaminated products directly if the product
owner did not comply with the agency’s request for a voluntary recall. On November 20,
2003, Representative DeGette introduced a bill that would give USDA and FDA recall
authority. Currently, the Secretary must go to the courts to obtain an order to seize and
detain suspected contaminated products if a firm refuses to issue a recall voluntarily.
Another proposal, the Meat and Poultry Inspection Accountability Act (H.R. 1003) would
give FSIS the authority to impose substantial civil money penalties on slaughtering and
processing operations that violated the meat and poultry inspection laws and regulations.
The GAO has criticized both agencies’ efforts to ensure that companies carry out recalls
quickly and efficiently, particularly of products that may carry severe risk of illness. For
CRS-13

---

IB10082
11-04-04
example, an October 2004 GAO report, Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure
Prompt and Complete Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food, concluded that the agencies do
not know how well companies are carrying out recalls and are ineffectively tracking them.
As a result, most recalled items are not recovered and thus may be consumed, GAO reported.
GAO proposed that Congress consider legislation requiring a company to notify USDA or
FDA if it discovers it has distributed unsafe food, and giving agencies authority to order food
recalls.
At past hearings, consumer groups and food safety advocacy groups have testified in
favor of obtaining these new enforcement tools to improve food safety in general, and to
strengthen USDA’s enforcement of the new HACCP system in particular. These groups
have stated that civil fines would serve as an effective deterrent and could be imposed more
quickly than criminal penalties or the withdrawal of inspection. They also have argued that
the authority to assess civil penalties would permit USDA to take stronger action against
“bad actors” — processors who persistently violate food safety standards. Food safety
advocates argue that FSIS should have the authority to mandate product recalls as a backup
guarantee in case voluntary recalls moved too slowly or were not comprehensive enough.
In a speech at the Food Safety Summit in March 2003, Secretary Veneman said that
USDA was weighing the merits of amending the meat and poultry inspection laws to (1)
require slaughtering and processing firms to inform the department if they suspect
adulteration or misbranding of their product; (2) obtain authority to impose civil penalties
on a firm if, after a written warning, it remains out of compliance; and (3) permit FSIS
inspectors to issue cease-and-desist orders or to withdraw inspection on the basis of HACCP
violations at an earlier stage than currently is the practice.
Meat and poultry industry trade associations have testified in opposition to granting
USDA new enforcement powers. Both producers and processors argue that current
authorities are sufficient and that only once has a plant refused to comply with USDA’s
recommendation to recall a suspected contaminated product. Industry representatives have
testified that USDA’s current authority to withdraw inspection, thereby shutting down a
plant, is a strong enough economic penalty to deter potential violators and punish so-called
bad actors. Furthermore, they say, new enforcement powers would increase the potential for
plants to suffer drastic financial losses from suspected contamination incidents that could
ultimately be proven false. Some observers argue that much still needs to be done to educate
consumers and restaurateurs about safe meat and poultry handling and cooking practices.
In August 2004, the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
began a national campaign to urge USDA to publicize the names of retail outlets where
recalled meat has been distributed, so that consumers can learn more quickly whether they
have purchased potentially contaminated products. USDA and industry leaders contend that
distribution records are proprietary, and exempt from provisions of the Federal Freedom of
Information Act; such information, they argue, should be limited mainly to public officials
so that they can monitor recalls. Meanwhile, the California legislature in August 2004
passed a bill (SB 1585) to require food companies and public agencies to make recall
information more widely available. However, the governor vetoed the bill.
CRS-14

---

IB10082
11-04-04
LEGISLATION
H.R. 1003 (Lowey)
The Meat and Poultry Inspection Accountability Act would expand enforcement options
in federal meat and poultry inspection laws to include the imposition of civil money penalties
and amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand FDA enforcement options
to include such penalties with respect to meat and poultry. Introduced February 27, 2003;
referred to Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2203 (Eshoo)
The Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act would clarify the
authority of the USDA Secretary to prescribe performance standards for pathogens and to
enforce the HACCP system. Introduced May 22, 2003; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 2273 (Udall)
The Unsafe Meat and Poultry Recall Act would amend the meat and poultry inspection
laws to authorize USDA to order the recall of suspected adulterated, misbranded, or
otherwise unsafe products. Introduced May 22, 2003; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 3547 (DeGette)
The Safe and Fair Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food Act would give
USDA and the FDA authority to order recalls of suspected contaminated food products, and
to withdraw inspection until after a hearing on a recall, from plants with a history of recurrent
food safety violations. The bill also would authorize civil penalties to be imposed on
violators of food safety acts and regulations. Introduced November 20, 2003; referred to
Committees on Agriculture and on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3705 (Miller)
The Mad Cow Testing Act of 2004 would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to
require BSE testing on all cattle for human food, with testing done by APHIS and costs borne
by packers/processors. Introduced January 20, 2004; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 4121 (Rehberg)
The Consumer and Producer Protection Act of 2004 would amend the Federal Meat
Inspection Act to permit inspection of nonambulatory cattle unable to walk due to “fatigue,
stress, obdurator nerve paralysis, obesity, or one or more broken or fractured appendages,
severed tendons or ligaments, or dislocated joints.” Introduced April 1, 2004; referred to
Committee on Agriculture.
S. 1103 (Harkin)
The Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act would clarify USDA
authority to prescribe performance standards for the reduction of pathogens in meat and
poultry and processed products; and to enforce the existing regulations for HACCP.
Introduced May 22, 2003; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
S. 1187 (Clinton)
The At-Risk Consumer Protection Through Food Safety Labeling Act would amend the
federal meat and poultry inspection laws to require that ready-to-eat meat or poultry products
not produced under a scientifically validated program to address Listeria monocytogenes be
CRS-15

---

IB10082
11-04-04
required to bear a label advising pregnant women and other at-risk consumers of the USDA
and FDA regulations regarding consumption of those products. Introduced June 4, 2003;
referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

S. 1298 (Akaka)/H.R. 2519 (Ackerman)
The Downed Animal Protection Act would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
promulgate regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of
nonambulatory livestock by a covered entity, including a requirement that they be humanely
euthanized. It would prohibit such animals from being inspected and passed for human food
in Federal Meat Inspection Act establishments. S. 1298 introduced June 19, 2003; referred
to the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 2519 introduced June 19, 2003; referred to the
Committee on Agriculture. (See H.R. 2673 for related amendments.)
S. 2007 (Durbin)/H.R. 3714 (DeLauro)
The BSE and Other Prion Disease Prevention and Public Health Protection Act would
set new restrictions intended to ensure that many imported foods, feeds, nutritional
supplements, medicines, cosmetics, and other specified articles do not harbor BSE
infectivity; prohibit such articles from entering interstate or foreign commerce if they contain
specified risk materials from ruminants; spell out new procedures for FDA oversight of
animal feed; mandate a national ruminant identification program; and establish new
programs for prion disease monitoring and testing, among other things. S. 2007 introduced
January 20, 2004; referred to Committee on Agriculture; H.R. 3714 introduced January 21,
2004; referred to Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; and Ways and Means.
S. 2051 (Cantwell)
The Animal Feed Protection Act of 2004 would prohibit in interstate or foreign
commerce animal feeds, nutritional supplements, and animal medicines that contain specified
risk materials from ruminants, any ruminant materials from USDA-designated BSE
countries, or any materials from ruminants with neurological disease signs. Introduced
February 5, 2004; referred to Committee on Agriculture.
S. 2910 (Durbin)/H.R. 5259 (DeLauro)
The Safe Food Act of 2004 would consolidate federal food safety responsibilities,
including those of FSIS and FDA, under a new Food Safety Administration. Introduced
October 7, 2004. S. 2910 referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture; H.R. 5929
referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and on Agriculture.
CRS-16

---