Order Code RL34080
Food and Agricultural Imports from China
Updated July 17, 2007
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Food and Agricultural Imports from China
Summary
U.S. food and agricultural imports have increased significantly in recent years,
causing some in Congress to question whether the U.S. food safety system can keep
pace. A series of recent incidents have raised safety concerns about the many foods,
medicines, and other products from China in particular. For example, in early 2007,
evidence began to emerge that adulterated pet food ingredients from China had
caused the deaths of an unknown number of dogs and cats. In late June 2007, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was detaining all
imports of farm-raised seafood from China (specifically, shrimp, catfish, basa, dace,
and eel) until the shippers of these products could confirm they are free of
unapproved drug residues.
U.S. imports of all Chinese food, agricultural, and seafood products have
increased from nearly 0.411 million metric tons (MMT) in 1996 to 1.833 MMT in
2006, a 346% rise. The increase by value was 375%, from $880 million in 1996 to
$4.2 billion in 2006. China was the sixth leading foreign supplier of agricultural
products to the United States and the second leading seafood supplier in 2006. When
seafood values are combined with food and agricultural products, China was the third
leading foreign supplier, after Canada and Mexico.
Two federal agencies — FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) — are primarily responsible
for the government’s food regulatory system, although a number of other federal,
state, and local agencies also have important roles. For imports, FSIS (which has
oversight over most meat and poultry) relies on a very different regulatory system
than FDA (which has oversight over other foods). Although all imported food
products must meet the same safety standards as domestically produced foods,
international trade rules permit a foreign country to apply its own, differing,
regulatory authorities and institutional systems in meeting such standards, under an
internationally recognized concept known as “equivalence.”
Despite recent statements by China that it is moving aggressively to improve its
food safety system and close unsafe plants, some Members of Congress have
expressed sharp criticism of both China’s food safety record and U.S. efforts to
insure the safety of imports. Congressional committees have held, or are planning,
hearings on food safety concerns generally and on the China situation particularly.
On May 2, 2007, Senator Durbin won unanimous approval of an amendment to the
Senate-passed FDA Revitalization Act (S. 1082) that would require domestic and
foreign facilities to notify FDA of food safety problems, and would require FDA to
establish a central registry for collecting information and notifying the public about
adulterated foods, and for notifying the public about adulterated human or animal
foods. The amendment includes elements of his proposed Human and Pet Food
Safety Act of 2007 (S. 1274), introduced as H.R. 2108 by Representative DeLauro.
Separate bills (S. 1776 and H.R. 2997) would, among other things, impose new user
fees on food imports to help cover the cost of their screening. More comprehensive
bills (H.R. 1148/S. 654) would combine current federal food safety oversight under
a new food safety administration.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Import Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
U.S. Import Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FDA Import Refusals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Overview and Limitations of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Refusals of Imports from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chinese Food Safety Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chinese Efforts to Address Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
U.S. Efforts to Improve Import Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Congressional Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Tables
Table 1. Leading Suppliers of U.S. Agricultural and Seafood Imports, CY2006 . 2
Table 2. Selected Agricultural and Seafood Imports from China, CY2006 . . . . . 3
Table 3. Number of Import Refusals by Country, May 2006-April 2007 . . . . . . . 8

Food and Agricultural Imports from China
Introduction
Food and agricultural imports have increased significantly in recent years,
causing some in Congress to question whether the U.S. food safety system can keep
pace. Analysts point out that domestically sourced foods also can pose safety
problems, as evidenced by recent outbreaks of illness linked to consumption of raw
produce and by continuing recalls of meat and poultry products due to bacterial
contamination.1
However, a series of recent incidents have raised safety concerns about the many
foods, medicines and other products from China in particular. For example, in early
2007, evidence began to emerge that adulterated pet food ingredients from China had
caused the deaths of an unknown number of dogs and cats. Furthermore, some
ingredients also were fed to U.S. food animals, although federal officials claimed that
humans were not at risk. In late June 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) announced that it was detaining all imports of farm-raised seafood from China
(specifically, shrimp, catfish, basa, dace, and eel) until the shippers of these products
could confirm that they are free of unapproved drug residues.
Although it has strongly defended its record, the Chinese government also has
announced a variety of steps to improve the safety of its food and drug exports,
including planned major revisions in its regulations, new inspections, and the closure
of nearly 200 problem plants.
These and other developments have greatly heightened public and congressional
scrutiny not only of China’s own food safety regime, but also of the adequacy of U.S.
import safeguards. In the 110th Congress, a number of congressional committees
have held hearings on or launched investigations of food imports from China and
elsewhere and the U.S. laws and regulations designed to ensure their safety. Bills also
have been introduced aimed at clarifying and expanding federal authorities and/or
reorganizing agency responsibilities. FDA officials claim that they are examining
how best to determine relative risks among products (imported and domestically
produced) and among exporting countries. Underlying all of these efforts is the
question of whether the agency has sufficient money and staff to address these risks.
Import Trends
U.S. imports of agricultural and seafood products from all countries increased
from 32.9 million metric tons (MMT) in calendar year 1996 to 46.7 MMT in 2006,
or by 42%. The increase by value was 98%, from $40.1 billion in 1996 to $78.5
1 See CRS Report RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues,
by Geoffrey S. Becker; and CRS Report RL33722, Food Safety: Federal and State Response
to the Spinach E. coli Outbreak
, by Donna V. Porter.

CRS-2
billion in 2006. Among the product categories that at least doubled in volume during
the period were live animals, wine/beer, fruit/vegetable juices, wheat, coffee, snack
foods, and various seafood products.2
Not all agricultural imports enter the human food supply; some products are
used as ingredients in pet food and animal feed, in manufactured goods (e.g., rubber),
and in the nursery plant trade. Nonetheless, consumers are obtaining a growing
portion of their diets from overseas. In 2005, nearly 15% of the overall volume of
U.S. food consumption was imported, compared with 11%-12% in 1995. The
proportions (volume) for some food product categories are much higher: in 2005 as
much as 84% of all U.S. fish and shellfish was imported (55% in 1995); 43% of all
noncitrus fresh fruits (34% in 1995); 37% of all processed fruits (20% in 1995); and
54% of all tree nuts (40% in 1995).3
U.S. imports of Chinese agricultural and seafood products have increased far
more rapidly than the global increase, from nearly 0.411 MMT in1996 to 1.833 MMT
in 2006, a 346% rise. The increase by value was 375%, from $880 million in 1996
to $4.2 billion in 2006.
In 2006, China was the sixth leading foreign supplier of agricultural products
to the United States (after Canada, Mexico, Italy, Australia, and Ireland, in that order)
and the second leading seafood supplier (after Canada). When seafood values are
combined with agricultural products, China was the third leading foreign supplier,
after Canada and Mexico (see Table 1, below).
Table 1. Leading Suppliers of U.S. Agricultural and
Seafood Imports, CY2006
(value in billion U.S. dollars)
Country
Agricultural Seafood
Total
Canada $13.433
$2.184
$15.617
Mexico
9.390
0.454
9.844
China
2.262
1.922
4.184
Thailand
1.812
1.334
3.146
Italy
2.802
.009
2.811
Indonesia
2.023
0.778
2.801
Chile
1.774
.952
2.726
Australia
2.487
.091
2.578
Brazil
2.237
.130
2.367
Ireland
2.354
.008
2.362
World Total
65.333
13.143
78.475
Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), BICO Import Commodity Aggregations.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), U.S. Trade
Internet System, BICO (Bulk, Intermediate, and Consumer-Oriented) data.
3 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), unpublished data, obtained May 11, 2007.
Other data including that provided by FDA indicate that the current percentage for seafood
is somewhat lower than 84%.

CRS-3
Table 2, below, shows the major types of food and agricultural imports from
China in 2006. Seafood products, including shrimp, other shellfish (mollusks), and
salmon, were the leading food-related (i.e., agricultural and seafood) imports. Fruits,
fruit juices, vegetables, tree nuts, teas, and spices also were high on the list.
Table 2. Selected Agricultural and Seafood Imports from China,
CY2006
Import
Value ($1,000)
(metric tons unless specified)
Other fish & products (not listed below)
$1,076,631
332,714
Shrimp & prawns
331,935
68,364
Mollusks
245,607
62,727
Misc. horticultural products
226,047
109,910
Fruit, processed
207,427
247,554
Fruit juices (kiloliters)
201,935
933,566
Other crustaceans
159,352
22,051
Feed, ingredients & fodders
147,850
59,988
Misc. industrial use
143,780
12,574
Vegetables, prepared or preserved
122,854
131,002
Poultry, misc.a
120,765
15,436
Sugar & related products
104,611
46,429
Salmon
97,792
26,482
Vegetables, dried/dehydrated
93,254
68,516
Edible tree nuts
80,853
10,070
Fresh vegetables, excluding potatoes
77,555
76,296
Other oilseeds products, nonagricultural
75,645
27,857
Grains and feed, misc.
75,495
46,422
Misc. meat productsa
69,673
15,672
Tea, excluding herbal
68,174
24,007
Misc. hair, industrial use
59,781
13,513
Vegetables, frozen
54,513
67,893
Spices
49,929
43,156
Cocoa & cocoa prods.
48,278
11,661
Misc. sugar and tropical
46,606
13,433
Essential oils
40,249
3,896
Fruit, dried
39,766
7,349
Rice
36,428
104,894
Source: USDA, FAS, FAS Import Commodity Aggregations. Not all products listed.
a. Primarily species not subject to FSIS inspection. (FSIS coverage is of the major commercial red meat and
poultry species and their products, while FDA has jurisdiction over any meat and poultry not inspected by FSIS.)

CRS-4
The broader categories in Table 2 mask some specific products that the United
States imports from China. For example, The United States received $941 million
in various types of fish fillets. Mushrooms accounted for at least $37 million of the
dried vegetable category in 2006.
A recent report by Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy organization,
noted that China became the leading exporter of seafood to the United States in 2004.
Aquaculture has facilitated this growth in exports, particularly of shrimp and tilapia.
Catfish, eel, and crab imports also have risen significantly.4
U.S. Import Safeguards
Overview
Although all food products imported into the United States must meet the same
safety standards as domestically produced foods, international trade rules permit a
foreign country to apply its own, differing, regulatory authorities and institutional
systems in meeting such standards, under an internationally recognized concept
known as “equivalence.”5
Two federal agencies — the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — are primarily responsible for the
government’s food regulatory system, although a number of other federal, state, and
local agencies also have important roles. For imports, FSIS relies on a very different
regulatory system than FDA, including a different approach to addressing
equivalence, as described in the following sections.6
FSIS
Under Section 20 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) as amended (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Section 466 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA)
as amended (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), FSIS is responsible for determining the
equivalence of other countries’ meat and poultry safeguards.7 A foreign plant cannot
4 Import Alert: Government Fails Consumers, Falls Short on Seafood Inspections. Food and
Water Watch, May 2007. Accessed on the Internet on June 5, 2007, at [http://www.
foodandwaterwatch.org/press/publications/reports/import-alert].
5 This concept is embodied in Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), which entered into force January 1, 1995, for
member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). For a more detailed explanation,
see CRS Report RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural
Trade
, and the WTO website at [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm].
6 The two systems are described in more detail in CRS Report RS22664, U.S. Food and
Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and Selected Issues
, from which this section is adapted.
7 FSIS coverage is of the major commercial red meat and poultry species and their products,
(continued...)

CRS-5
ship products to the United States unless FSIS has certified that its country has a
program that provides a level of protection that is at least equivalent to the U.S.
system.8 In addition, FSIS operates a reinspection program at U.S. border entry
points. Generally, agency inspectors review all import records, assisted by a
computerized statistical sampling program, the Automated Import Inspection System
(AIIS), that enables targeting of some shipments for actual inspection — examining
their physical condition, labeling, and documentation. China is not yet certified to
ship FSIS-regulated meat and poultry products (the major commercial species) to the
United States.
Meat and poultry imports from other countries, however, have increased
significantly, from nearly 2.3 billion pounds presented for inspection in FY1996 to
4.3 billion pounds in FY2005. FSIS has estimated that it physically examined
approximately 20% of all such imports in FY1996 and 9.7% in FY2005 (after
implementation of the AIIS in the early 2000s).
FDA
Under Section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), FDA can refuse entry to any food import if it
“appears,” based on a physical examination or otherwise, to be adulterated,
misbranded, or in violation of the law.9 In exercising its oversight, the agency relies
on a system of prior notifications by importers and document reviews at points of
entry (ports). Importers must have an entry bond and file a notification for every
shipment. Import information is entered into FDA’s database, the Operational and
Administrative System for Import Support (OASIS). This system helps inspectors
to determine a shipment’s relative risk and whether it needs closer scrutiny (i.e.,
actual examination and/or testing). FDA inspectors work closely with Customs and
Border Protection officials from the Department of Homeland Security on these
tasks.10
The volume of FDA-regulated imports has more than tripled in the past decade.
The agency received more than 10 million imported food lines (shipments) in
FY2006, compared with less than 2.8 million shipments in FY1996. Just over 1%
of these shipments were physically examined in FY2006, compared with 1.7% in
7 (...continued)
while FDA has jurisdiction over any meat and poultry not inspected by FSIS.
8 A list of the 38 currently certified countries can be accessed on the FSIS website at [http://
www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_%26_policies/Eligible_Foreign_Establishments/index.asp].
9 21 U.S.C. § 381(a); see also [http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/rpm_new2/ch9auto.
html].
10 The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-188) expanded the prior notification requirements for FDA-regulated imported
foods. It also now requires any imported or domestic facility that manufactures, processes,
packs, or holds food for U.S. consumption to register with the FDA; farms and retail
establishments are among those exempted. Further, the act requires records sufficient to
identify the immediate supplier as well as the subsequent recipient of the product.

CRS-6
FY1996. A food line is a single shipment, regardless of size — whether a single
carton or a large carlot — making it difficult if not impossible to determine the share
of the total volume of imports that is actually being examined.
FDA’s ability to operate within other countries appears to be more limited than
that of FSIS. FDA can, and does, periodically visit foreign facilities to inspect their
operations, but usually in response to a concern and only with the permission of the
foreign government. Furthermore, the agency asserts that it lacks the staff and
funding to increase its presence overseas, regardless of whether it might have the
legal authority to do so.11 The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) had a total budget of $450 million and staff of 2,843 (full-time equivalent
or FTE) in FY2006, of which $285 million and 1,962 FTEs were in the field.12
FDA theoretically has the authority to require equivalency standards for Chinese
imports, but the agency’s situation is significantly more complex than that of FSIS
(which regulates fewer types of food products), as stated by David Acheson, the
FDA’s Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection, at a May 9, 2007, hearing before
the House Agriculture Committee. An equivalence-type approach is one possible
option for the future, he added.13 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
1998 had concluded that border inspections alone were ineffective and also asserted
that FDA lacks the statutory authority to mandate equivalency.14
FDA Import Refusals
Overview and Limitations of Analysis
Using the OASIS data, the FDA compiles a monthly “Import Refusal Report”
for food shipments that it rejects. Such products have to be either re-exported or
destroyed by the importer. The agency posts these monthly refusal reports on its
website, but only for the most recent 12 months (i.e., only one year’s worth of
11 An FDA website notes that “[f]ull equity in foreign inspections is far beyond the resources
of FDA.” Accessed May 15, 2007, at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/intl-toc.html].
12 House Appropriations Committee Hearings, Agriculture Appropriations for FY2007. A
further breakdown of field staff involved with imported foods was not immediately
available, although CRS had reported it to be 595 FTEs out of a total of 1,452 field staff in
FY1996 (in out-of-print CRS Report 98-850, The Safety of Imported Foods: The Federal
Role and Issues Before Congress
, by Donna U. Vogt, available from the author).
13 “Officials defend federal response to melamine contamination,” Food Chemical News,
May 14, 2007. In a July 11, 2007 conference call, Dr. Acheson reportedly reiterated his
concern about the complexity of trying to seek food safety equivalency agreements with the
approximately 150 countries that ship products to the United States (Food Chemical News,
July 13, 2007).
14 GAO Report RCED-98-103, Food Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of
Imported Foods Are Inconsistent and Unreliable
. April 1998.

CRS-7
refusals).15 The refusals for each month can be searched by country or by product
category, but not by both at the same time. Data for only 12 months, from May 2006
through April 2007, appeared on the website as of May 2007, and the months were
not aggregated into annual figures.16
For each line (shipment), the system provides the name of the source company
and the reason for refusal. As noted earlier, the size of each shipment in the OASIS
database varies. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate the volumes of products
being rejected, either as an absolute quantity or as a proportion of total imports.
Also, the types or categories of imports do not necessarily correspond to the
categories reported through the FAS trade databases (see Tables 1 and 2, above).
Mindful of these caveats, CRS prepared a tabulation of the refusals, focusing on
nearly 40 categories of FDA-regulated food and food-related products.17 For the one-
year period available at the time of this CRS tabulation (May 2006-April 2007), FDA
logged a total of approximately 8,200 refusals. Of these, more than 700 separate
shipments were from China. Two other countries had more shipments refused:
Mexico with nearly 1,300 and India with more than 1,100 (see Table 3).18
It is important to note that a higher relative number does not necessarily indicate
that one country’s products are less safe, or its food safety system less rigorous, than
another country’s. The country simply might be a more important source of U.S.
agricultural and/or seafood imports. On the other hand, Canada, which imports much
more to the United States than any other country, had far fewer refusals than either
China or Mexico, the second most important U.S. importer in dollar value. India had
the second highest number of refusals, even though it is not among the top 10
exporters of food, agricultural, and seafood products to the United States.19
Because of technical problems with OASIS at the time this report was prepared,
FDA officials said they could not immediately respond in detail to CRS questions
about the database that might have shed additional light on the significance, if any,
of the numbers in Table 3. For example, the information published on the FDA
website does not include the overall number of shipments. Thus, CRS could not
calculate for this report the percentage of overall shipments that had been refused for
15 FDA website, accessed May 31, 2007, at [http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.
html].
16 CRS did not examine FSIS import refusals. China currently is not certified by FSIS to
export meat or poultry products to the United States. A proposed rule in the November 23,
2005, Federal Register to permit some types of processed poultry is pending.
17 Also listed in the OASIS refusal reports, but not examined here, are other FDA-regulated
products, e.g., human and animal drugs, medical devices, and vitamins.
18 The New York Times reportedly compiled a more recent 12-month tabulation (July 2006
to June 2007), which indicated that refusals were higher during the period: 1,763 for India,
1,480 for Mexico, and 1,368 for China. See “China Not Sole Source of Dubious Food,”
New York Times, July 12, 2007.
19 Nonetheless, India’s exports to the United States were valued at a significant $1.4 billion
in calendar 2006.

CRS-8
a given month, country, or product. However, FDA did receive a total of nearly 15
million import shipments of all types of FDA-regulated products, including but not
limited to foods, during FY2006, or an average of approximately 1.25 million
shipments per month.20
Table 3. Number of Import Refusals by Country,
May 2006-April 2007
Argentina
59
Guatemala
97
Peru
39
Australia
34
Honduras
113
Philippines
153
Bangladesh
54
Hong Kong
52
Poland
76
Brazil
123
India (2)
1,109
Russia
26
Canada
193
Indonesia (5)
334
South Africa
42
Chile
35
Iran
26
Spain
75
China (3)
720
Italy (8)
228
Sri Lanka
72
Colombia
45
Jamaica
36
Syria
70
Costa Rica
35
Japan (7)
295
Taiwan
165
Dominican Republic (4)
593
Korea (South)
111
Thailand (9)
218
Ecuador
56
Lebanon
26
Turkey
81
Egypt
47
Malaysia
35
Ukraine
25
El Salvador
25
Mexico (1)
1,271
United Kingdom (10)
206
France
178
Netherlands
54
Vietnam (6)
335
Ghana
49
Pakistan
140
Source: FDA Import Refusal Reports for OASIS. See text for caveats on use of data. Countries with fewer than
25 refusals are omitted here.
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate top ten countries by rank of number of import refusals.
Reviewing refusals by industry, vegetables/vegetable products and seafood
products appear to have been the most frequently refused products (at approximately
1,700 shipments from all countries for each of these two product types). Fruits/fruit
products from all countries accounted for nearly 900 refusals. Candy products
accounted for nearly 600, and spices/flavors/salts for more than 500. Many fruit and
vegetable product refusals originated in the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and
several other Latin American and Caribbean nations; a frequently cited reason was
pesticide contamination. Bacterial contamination (e.g., Salmonella) or filthy
condition was cited numerous times.
Fish and shellfish were refused for a variety of reasons, often bacterial
contamination, filthy condition, and/or veterinary drug residues. These products
most frequently appear to have originated in Asian countries, not only China but also
Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, and others. The recent report by Food and Water Watch
analyzed the FDA OASIS refusals of seafood in more detail, and for all calendar
20 FDA e-mail communication to CRS, June 6, 2007.

CRS-9
years from 2002 to 2006. Among its findings were that more than 70% of all
imported seafood products were processed. More than 20% of all seafood refusals
were due to Salmonella, of which 40% were shrimp. It also observed that more
seafood is being refused for veterinary drug residues.21
Many refusals of foods of all types also appear to be due to concerns about
mislabeling, failure to register, or failure to document that the product had complied
with safe manufacturing practices (e.g., HACCP for low acid canned foods or
seafoods).22
Refusals of Imports from China
Of the 720 refused shipments from China, nearly half (340) were seafood
products, and approximately one-third of these products were eel. The most
frequently cited reason for rejecting the eel shipments was a concern about
adulteration by unsafe levels of veterinary drug residues. Catfish products also were
often refused, usually because of concerns about veterinary drug residues. A wide
variety of other types of finfish, from tilapia fillets to cod and salmon products, was
refused for numerous apparent concerns, including veterinary drug residues, filthy
appearance, and Salmonella contamination. More than three dozen separate shrimp
shipments were refused because of filthy appearance, the presence of nitrofuran (a
banned antibiotic), or Salmonella. Other examples of refused seafoods were scallops,
crawfish, and squid.
FDA also refused a total of 221 shipments of various fruits and vegetables from
China, including processed products. Approximately one-fourth of these shipments
were of mushrooms, often in dried form; these were most frequently rejected for
filthy appearance. Other reasons for refusing fruit and vegetable product shipments
ranged from concerns about the presence of violative levels of pesticides or other
unacceptable ingredients, including unsafe color additives, to the lack of proper
documentation and/or labeling.
Seafood products and fruit and vegetable products together constituted the
majority of refused shipments from China. Examples of other types of food products
that were refused, although in fewer numbers, were certain candies, bean curd and
bean paste, teas, and various nuts and spices.
Chinese officials strongly defend their safety record. One official asserted at a
May 31, 2007, news conference that U.S. inspectors had approved “99 percent” of
all Chinese food and medical shipments over the last three years and that recent
reports of rejected Chinese shipments had been sensationalized. He further argued
that most of those that had been rejected were unauthorized shipments that had
skirted Chinese controls.23 Other Chinese officials have declared that U.S. importing
21 Import Alert: Government Fails Consumers, Falls Short on Seafood Inspections.
22 The FDA website defines each of these terms, which are among approximately 180
possible specific reasons for refusal.
23 Li Yuanping, director general of the Chinese Import and Export Food Safety Bureau, as
(continued...)

CRS-10
companies need to look beyond their emphasis on low prices and communicate more
clearly what their standards are.24
FDA officials said they could not immediately respond to a CRS request for the
number of food and agricultural shipments from China during the period examined
(May 2006-April 2007). They did state that in FY2006, the overall refusal rate for
shipments from China (food and all other types of FDA-regulated shipments) was
0.15%. They cautioned that the 99.85% of shipments were not necessarily in
compliance, because the agency only has the resources to examine 1% of all line
entries (shipments) into the country (see discussion above).25
William Hubbard, a former FDA deputy commissioner, recently told National
Public Radio (NPR) that total “individual shipments of food and ingredient exports
from China to the United States have gone from 82,000 in 2002 to 199,000 in 2006.
And I’m told by FDA officials that they’re rapidly reaching up to 300,000 this
year.”26 However, the same NPR report said that FDA inspectors had blocked 257
food imports from China in April 2007 alone; that number actually represented
refused shipments of all FDA-regulated food, drug, and medical products, not foods
alone.
Chinese Food Safety Challenges
As noted, the FDA OASIS database does not provide answers as to whether
Chinese imports are any less safe than those from other countries. Nonetheless, the
country has come under intense criticism in the wake of several widely publicized
incidents involving adulterated food, agricultural, and medical exports. For example,
in early 2007 pet food ingredients from China that contained the chemical melamine
— apparently added to boost the ingredients’ protein levels — sickened or killed an
unknown number of dogs and cats in North America. The ingredients subsequently
were found in some hog, chicken, and fish feed. A risk assessment indicated the
problem posed virtually no risk to humans, USDA and FDA officials asserted.
Another incident attracted attention in early May 2007, when the Mississippi
Commissioner of Agriculture ordered a number of stores there to stop selling catfish
from China after samples tested positive for antibiotics banned in the United States.
23 (...continued)
quoted in various news reports including “China Says Food Export Inspections Are
Effective,” Washington Post, June 1, 2007. Also see “China Confronts Crisis Over Food
Safety,” Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2007.
24 “U.S., Chinese leaders try to advance trade, food safety issues,” Agri-Pulse, May 30,
2007.
25 FDA e-mail communication to CRS, June 6, 2007.
26 “Q&A: Why China Tops the FDA Import Refusal List,” accessed May 25, 2007, at
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=10410111].

CRS-11
Such concerns are not new. An FDA import inspector was quoted in 1991:
“Some countries we almost never have problems with.... But others, such as India,
Thailand, China, Korea, and many countries in Africa, require constant vigilance.”27
A number of analysts has examined the food safety challenges China faces as
it becomes a major agricultural exporter. USDA economists recently wrote:
China emerged in the 1990s as a low-cost exporter of food products such as
vegetables, apples, seafood, and poultry. But in recent years, China’s exports
slowed when shipments of vegetables, poultry and shrimp were rejected for
failing to meet stringent standards in Japan, Europe, and other countries,
revealing a gap between Chinese and international food safety standards.28
Some analysts contend that China’s problems in complying with other —
usually more developed — countries’ safety requirements are typical of those faced
by most developing countries. They point to a number of specific obstacles the
Chinese have encountered in upgrading their safeguards, including:
! the difficulty of standardizing and monitoring production practices
at the farm production level, to which many safety problems can be
traced due to widespread noncompliance with existing regulations
such as environmental rules, and which is composed of 200 million
households typically farming on plots of one to two noncontiguous
acres;
! heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides to counteract intensively
cultivated soils and large pest pressures;
! wide use of antibiotics to control diseases in intensive livestock,
poultry, and aquaculture systems;
! industrialization, lax environmental controls, and untreated human
and animal waste in fields and waters, which raise concerns about
toxic, metal, and microbial contaminants in food;
! a fragmented marketing system dominated by millions of small firms
handling small volumes, often on a cash basis with no
documentation or ability to trace products;
! a fragmented regulatory and oversight structure involving 10
national government ministries and little coordination with lower
levels of government, which often have their own, differing
standards for food products; and
27 Sharon Snider, “From Psyllium Seeds to Stoneware: FDA Insures the Quality of Imports,”
FDA Consumer Magazine, March 1991.
28 Linda Calvin et al., “Food Safety Improvements Underway in China,” Amber Waves,
November 2006, USDA, ERS. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the major
international body for encouraging international trade in food while promoting the health
and economic interest of consumers. Codex is a subsidiary of the Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization. One of its key functions is to develop
standards, codes of practice, and guidelines for the safety of foods, in accordance with the
SPS Agreement. The Codex website is at [http://www.codexalimentarius.net].

CRS-12
! for many commodities and industries, outdated or nonexistent
standards, or standards that are inconsistent with internationally
accepted ones.29
Chinese Efforts to Address Food Safety
To overcome such obstacles, the Chinese government announced it has
undertaken a number of major initiatives to bolster its food safety system. For
example, officials announced their intention to update a 1995 consumer food law,
and in 2006 the Chinese legislature adopted a national framework for building an
agricultural product safety system. The Chinese say they now require registration of
all land and processing facilities used for exported products, and exporters must have
facilities that can test for pesticide residues. The government also samples and tests
products for export to help ensure they meet foreign buyers’ standards.30
China also has been encouraging investment, including foreign direct
investment, in production and processing to improve technology, marketing and
management skills, and transportation and infrastructure. Six types of processed
foods — canned food, aquatic products, meat and meat products, frozen vegetables,
fruit/vegetable juice, and some frozen convenience foods — reportedly are to be
manufactured under HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control point) standards.31
HACCP is a system of assessing risks, determining the points at which they might
occur during production, and instituting measures to prevent them.32
China announced that it will unveil, by the end of 2007, national regulations for
recalling adulterated food. At a May 31, 2007, news conference, a Chinese official
also pointed to the death sentence handed down to the former head of the
government’s food and drug safety agency, as an example of its determination to
improve product oversight. The agency head had been convicted of taking bribes for
approving potentially dangerous drugs. He reportedly was executed on July 10,
2007.33
In late June, one Chinese government agency reportedly announced the closure
of 180 food manufacturers that it said had been using industrial materials such as
dyes, mineral oils, hydrochloric acid, paraffin, and formaldehyde in a variety of food
products, including flour, candies, seafood, pickles, and biscuits. Another agency
reportedly claimed to have closed 152,000 unlicensed food manufacturers and
retailers in 2006 for making counterfeit or low-quality products.
29 Calvin. Also, Fengxia Dong and Helen H. Jensen, “Challenges for China’s Agricultural
Exports: Compliance with Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,” Choices, 1st quarter 2007.
30 Calvin.
31 Dong.
32 FDA information on HACCP is at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/haccp.html].
33 “China Executes Former Head of Food Safety Agency,” Wall Street Journal, July 10,
2007.

CRS-13
The Chinese also are seeking to demonstrate that they are protecting their own
consumers from unsafe products, whether domestic or imported. On July 13, 2007,
for example, they announced that meat and poultry imports shipped by some U.S.
companies were being suspended. These include chicken products that they assert
contained Salmonella bacteria (although U.S. interests have long noted that proper
cooking destroys the bacteria), and pork products that contained an unapproved feed
additive (which appears to be legal in the United States).34
U.S. Efforts to Improve Import Compliance
At May 15 and May 17, 2007, media briefings on adulteration of plant proteins
from China, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection Acheson reported that
he was currently reviewing all aspects of the U.S. food safety system, including
imports from all countries. At the time, he and other FDA officials declined to
provide specifics on ongoing efforts to secure food safety agreements of any kind
with China but did point out that, after shipments of Mexican cantaloupes with
Salmonella contamination several years ago, the U.S. and Mexican governments had
developed an agreement to improve agricultural practices in Mexico.
Dr. Acheson reportedly stated in a July 11, 2007 conference call that FDA
officials were working on a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
China that could include such elements as improving training for Chinese food safety
officials and more data sharing on problems.35
FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN) website indicates that it
is aggressively pursuing both formal and informal agreements with foreign
government counterparts to achieve mutual recognition of equivalence of regulatory
systems. Another FDA website lists more than 90 “International Arrangements” with
approximately 30 separate foreign entities, of which 36 appear to be directly food-
related. Roughly a third of these address aspects of shellfish or other seafood
safety.36 FDA’s agreements with China apparently do not include any for food, but
are in place for lead in tableware.
During a May 22-24, 2007, economic summit with China, the U.S. government
requested a meeting soon, possibly in the fall, specifically on food safety. It asked
the Chinese to respond to the following specific requests:
! to provide detailed information on Chinese food safety control
measures, including the procedures, methodology, and technology
for testing and quarantine of suspect products;
! to provide raw data from the testing the Chinese government has
conducted on regulated products;
34 Various news reports, including Food Chemical News, July 2, 2007; The Wall Street
Journal
, July 16, 200; and Reuters, July 15, 2007.
35 “FDA in talks with China over food safety MOU, says Acheson,” Food Chemical News,
July 16, 2007.
36 Both websites accessed May 15, 2007, at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/intl-toc.html].

CRS-14
! to provide the ongoing results of all tests for melamine in ingredients
destined for humans or animals;
! to impose a registration requirement for all Chinese firms intending
to export food and feed products to the United States, and to prohibit
exports from unregistered firms;
! to publish a regularly updated list of the registered Chinese firms;
! to issue necessary clearances including multi-year and multi-entry
visas for FDA personnel to conduct health-related inspections in
China and to audit systems confirming that Chinese firms are
meeting U.S. requirements.37
In perhaps the most significant move to date, the FDA on June 28, 2007, issued
an import alert ordering the “Detention Without Physical Examination” of all of the
following aquacultured products from China: catfish, basa (related to catfish),
shrimp, dace (related to carp), and eel.38 FDA said it issued the notice after targeted
sampling during October 2006 through May 2007 “repeatedly found that farm-raised
seafood imported from China were contaminated with antimicrobial agents that are
not approved for this use in the United States.” The agents are nitrofuran, malachite
green, and gentian velvet, which have been found to be carcinogenic to laboratory
animals; and fluoroquinolones, which when used in food animals may increase
antibiotic resistance in humans, the agency said.
Under such an import alert, FDA will detain all covered products until the
importing firm demonstrates, through testing by an independent laboratory, that a
representative sample of their product is free of these contaminants. Although the
FDA has long issued these types of alerts for various imports, they generally are more
limited in scope, for example, to a particular firm or product.
The import alert reiterates that approximately 80% of U.S. seafood consumption
is from imports and that over 40% of these imports come from aquaculture
operations. Shrimp and catfish are two of the top 10 most frequently consumed
seafood products. China is the largest aquaculture producer in the world, with 70%
of total production, and the third largest exporter to the United States. The alert
observes: “As the aquaculture industry continues to grow and compete with wild-
caught seafood products, concerns regarding the use of unapproved animal drugs and
unsafe chemicals and the misuse of animal drugs in aquaculture operations have
increased substantially.”
Congressional Consideration
Some Members of Congress have expressed sharp criticism both of China’s
food safety record and of U.S. efforts to insure the safety of that country’s imports.
The House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on May 9, 2007, to take testimony
37 “Actions Requested of the People’s Republic of China by the U.S. Government to Address
the Safety of Food and Feed,” USDA Fact Sheet accessed May 25, 2007, at [http://www.
usda.gov].
38 FDA Import Alert #16-13, which may be viewed at [http://www.fda.gov/ora//fiars/
ora_import_ia16131.html]

CRS-15
on the topic from FDA and FSIS officials. Several other panels have held hearings
on China import concerns and/or the broader topic of U.S. food safety efforts, most
recently the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee and the Senate Commerce Committee (both during the week of July
17, 2007). Additional hearings on the China situation and on food safety generally
are anticipated in both chambers during the 110th Congress.
On May 2, 2007, Senator Durbin won unanimous approval of an amendment to
the Senate-passed FDA Revitalization Act (S. 1082) that would require domestic and
foreign facilities to notify FDA of food safety problems; would require FDA to
establish a central registry for collecting information on adulterated foods, and for
notifying the public about adulterated human or animal foods; and would require
FDA to implement uniform national standards and labeling for pet foods. The
amendment includes elements of his proposed Human and Pet Food Safety Act of
2007 (S. 1274), introduced as H.R. 2108 by Representative DeLauro. The two
lawmakers also have introduced more comprehensive bills (H.R. 1148/S. 654) to
combine current federal food safety oversight under a new food safety administration.
Senator Durbin in July also introduced S. 1776, which would impose new user
fees of $20 per line item of imports to help defray the costs of inspections, increase
the number of inspectors, and pay for research into new testing methods. Further, the
measure would require foreign governments or firms that want to import food into
the United States to be certified by FDA as having equivalent food safety programs.
The certifications would be valid for five years, among other provisions. A similar
House bill (H.R. 2997) was introduced by Representative Kaptur.
Recent developments with food imports also have spurred calls for speedier
implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh meats,
produce and peanuts, now scheduled to take effect on September 30, 2008. H.R. 357
and S. 404 would mandate COOL by September 30, 2007. A provision in the draft
USDA appropriation for FY2008, pending in the House Appropriations Committee
the week of July 16, 2007, would set a timeline aimed at ensuring USDA
implementation by the currently legislated deadline. (For further information on
COOL, see CRS Report 97-508, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods).