Order Code RL34152
Food Safety: Selected Issues and Bills
in the 110th Congress
September 4, 2007
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Food Safety: Selected Issues and Bills
in the 110th Congress
Summary
A series of widely publicized food safety problems, including concerns about
adulterated pet food ingredients and farmed seafood from China, foodborne illness
outbreaks linked to the bacterium E. coli O157:H7 on leafy produce from California,
and a national recall of peanut butter due to Salmonella contamination, have made
food safety a top issue for a number of lawmakers in the 110th Congress. Several
Members have introduced bills to alter the current U.S. food safety system and/or
increase spending, which they assert is needed to meet current obligations to protect
consumers from unsafe food. This report describes a number of these measures.
Reorganization of Food Safety Responsibilities. The Government
Accountability Office has concluded that the current federal safety system should be
fundamentally re-examined because it is fragmented and inefficient, threatening food
safety. H.R. 1148 and S. 654 would consolidate federal food safety responsibilities
under a new, independent Food Safety Administration.
Food Import Oversight. U.S. food imports have increased significantly in
recent years, raising questions about whether U.S. safeguards, which generally were
created at a time when most Americans obtained their foods domestically,
sufficiently protect public health. H.R. 2997 and S. 1776 would require foreign
countries and establishments to receive U.S. certifications before importing into the
United States, and charge fees on food imports to cover oversight costs. H.R. 1148,
S. 654, H.R. 2108, and S. 1274 also contain import pre-certification requirements.
H.R. 3100 and S. 1082 include other provisions to bolster food import safety.
Notification and Recall Authority; Traceability. Generally, neither the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) nor USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) has explicit statutory authority to order a recall of adulterated foods, to require
a company to notify them when it has distributed such foods, or to impose penalties
if recall requirements are violated. H.R. 2108/S. 1274, Title VI of S. 1082, and S.
1148/S. 654 contain various provisions for mandatory recall authority and/or
notification requirements when adulterated foods are suspected to be in commerce.
S. 1292 would require USDA to establish a meat and poultry traceability system.
State-Inspected Meat and Poultry. Federal law prohibits state-inspected meat
and poultry from being shipped across state lines, a ban that many states and small
plants want to overturn. Bills seeking to allow such shipments include H.R. 2315/S.
1150, H.R. 1760, S. 1149, and H.R. 2419 (Section 11103).
Other food-safety related measures include H.R. 962/S. 549, to curtail the non-
medical use of antibiotics in animal feeds; H.R. 992/S. 414 and H.R. 1396/S. 536,
addressing the labeling of products from cloned animals; H.R. 912 and S. 1082
(Section 604), encouraging produce safety; and H.R. 3161 and S. 1859, which
provide FY2008 appropriations for FDA and FSIS food safety activities. Also, the
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman in August 2007 was circulating
for discussion a wide-ranging food safety bill covering but not limited to imports.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Food Safety System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reorganization of Food Safety Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Food Import Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Assured Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Imported Food Safety Act of 2007 (S. 1776) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Import Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 3100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Human and Pet Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2108/S. 1274) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007 (Dingell Draft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Notification and Recall Authority; Product Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Human and Pet Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2108/S. 1274) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Meat and Poultry Products Traceability and Safety Act of 2007 (S. 1292)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007 (Dingell Draft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State-Inspected Meat and Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2007 (H.R. 2315/S.
1150) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
H.R. 1760/S. 1149 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Antibiotic Use in Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2007 (H.R. 962/S.
549) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Cloned Food Labeling Act (H.R. 992/S. 414) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
H.R. 1396/S. 536 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Produce Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Spinach Research and Recovery Act of 2007 (H.R. 912) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082) . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 3161, S. 1859) . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A: Selected Food Safety Bills at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Food Safety: Selected Issues and Bills
in the 110th Congress
Introduction
The combined efforts of the food industry and the regulatory agencies often are
credited with making the U.S. food supply among the safest in the world.
Nonetheless, public health officials have estimated that each year 76 million people
become sick, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die from foodborne illnesses
caused by contamination from any one of a number of microbial pathogens.1 At issue
is whether the current system has the resources and structural organization to protect
consumers from these dangers. Also at issue is whether federal food safety laws, first
enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have
occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then.
Food safety-related incidents frequently heighten public and media scrutiny of
the U.S. food safety system in general, as a number of developments in 2006 and
2007 have illustrated. For example, more than 200 confirmed illnesses and three
deaths were linked last fall to the consumption of bagged fresh spinach grown in
California and carrying the bacterium E.coli O157:H7. The incident raised public
concerns about the safety of all fresh leafy produce and stimulated a number of
industry and government initiatives to limit future contamination. In February 2007,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a nationwide recall of
Peter Pan and Great Value brands peanut butter produced in a Georgia ConAgra plant
due to Salmonella contamination, after hundreds of illnesses, dating back to August
2006 and linked to the bacterium, were reported by public health officials.2
Attention shifted to the safety of food imports in early 2007 when adulterated
pet food ingredients imported from China sickened or killed an unknown number of
dogs and cats and subsequently were found in some hog, chicken, and fish feed.3 In
June 2007, FDA announced that it was detaining all imports of certain types of farm-
raised seafood from China (specifically, shrimp, catfish, basa, dace, and eel) until
their shippers could confirm that they are free of unapproved drug residues.
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, “Foodborne Illness: Frequently Asked Questions,” accessed at
[http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/]. However, this estimate appears to be based primarily on
1997 and earlier data in a report by Paul S. Mead et al., “Food-related Illness and Death in
the United States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 5., pp. 607-625, 1999.
2 For sources and updates see the FDA website: [http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html].
3 FDA requires the same general safety standards for human foods and animal feeds,
including pet food.

CRS-2
These and other developments have made food safety a top issue for a number
of lawmakers in the 110th Congress. Several have called for changes in the U.S. food
safety system and/or funding increases that they assert are needed to meet current
obligations to protect consumers from unsafe food. Perceived gaps in federal
safeguards are being explored at a number of congressional hearings in 2007. A
number of bills addressing various aspects of the issue have been introduced, as
described in this report. (The body of this report discusses these bills according to
the issues they appear to address; Appendix A summarizes them by number.)
If any of these bills progress through the committees of jurisdiction (see below)
and onto the House and Senate floors, they could conceivably be considered either
independently, or attached to other, larger measures which Congress is considering.
For example, food safety provisions were added to the Senate version of a Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) bill (S. 1082) as described later in this report. Other
potential vehicles are annual appropriations for agriculture and FDA (such as H.R.
3161 and S. 1859) and an omnibus farm bill (such as H.R. 2419).
The Food Safety System
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified 15 federal
agencies collectively administering at least 30 laws related to food safety. FDA,
which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is part of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), together comprise the majority of both the total funding and the
total staffing of the government’s food regulatory system.4 Primary statutes
governing FDA’s activities are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the Public Health Service Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). FSIS’s primary authorities are the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (FMIA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.).
Among other agencies with smaller but still significant shares of the food safety
portfolio are the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is part of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (DOC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in HHS. USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Department of Homeland Security’s
Customs and Border Protection also have important roles with regard to imports of
food and agricultural products.
Congressional oversight of this system is complicated somewhat because a
number of committees have jurisdiction over food safety. In the Senate, such matters
can come before any of three committees: Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry;
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions. In the House, food safety can fall within the purview of any of four
4 High Risk Series: An Update (GAO-07-310), January 2007. For more information on
federal oversight roles see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A
Primer
, by Geoffrey S. Becker and Donna V. Porter, from which portions of this section are
taken.

CRS-3
committees: Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; Science and Technology; and/or
Government Oversight and Reform. The subject and responsible agency typically
determine which particular committee will have sole or joint jurisdiction. The
agriculture subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees also
address annual funding for the agencies and in this capacity conduct close oversight.
Reorganization of Food Safety Responsibilities
Proponents have argued for decades that U.S. food safety activities are dispersed
over too many agencies and are poorly coordinated. GAO as been among these
proponents. In its annual (January 2007) report, GAO designated food safety
oversight as one of 29 “high risk” federal program areas. The report concluded that
the current federal safety system is “fragmented,” resulting in
inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.
GAO has recommended that Congress consider a fundamental reexamination of
the system and other improvements to help ensure the rapid detection of and
response to any accidental or deliberate contamination of food before public
health and safety is compromised.5
Opponents of major food safety system changes, including many in the food and
agricultural industries, assert that the system already is scientifically based, that the
statutes are adequate, and that food companies already produce and distribute safe
food, making the U.S. system a model for food safety around the world.
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654)
Representative DeLauro and Senator Durbin introduced in February 2007
companion bills that would consolidate federal food safety responsibilities under a
new Food Safety Administration (FSA). The FSA would be responsible for
administering the existing major food safety laws including the FFDCA, FMIA and
PPIA. The wide-ranging bills also include requirements for determining food-borne
contaminants, setting performance standards, registering and inspecting
establishments; they also contain provisions covering enforcement activities such as
detention, notification and recall, as well as research and education activities. More
specifically, the bills would:
! Establish an independent FSA headed by an administrator appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Agencies and their
functions to be transferred include USDA’s FSIS and APHIS; the
FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and
Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), as well as portions of other
FDA offices that support these centers; resources of the EPA that
regulate pesticide residues in food; USDA’s research related to food
safety and animal feed; NMFS seafood inspection; and any other
offices or services designated by the President.
5 High Risk Series: An Update.

CRS-4
! Require FSA to administer a national food safety system for humans
and other animals that is based on a comprehensive analysis of food
hazards, to register all domestic and foreign food establishments
(with the exception of farms, fishing vessels that do not process
food, and retail establishments), and to conduct regular unannounced
inspections of them. The bills would require the establishments to
implement process controls based on FSA-promulgated, science and
health-based regulations and to maintain detailed, accessible records;
and require FSA to develop and enforce health-based performance
standards to protect against all food-borne contaminants. Inspection
fundamentals and frequencies also are spelled out in the bills.
! Create a certification program for imports (see next section for
details).
! Require FSA to develop a national system for tracing food and food
animals from their point of origin to retail sale.
! Direct FSA to sample and analyze foods for contaminants, in order
to assess their relative public health risks and to identify ways to
minimize such risks. FSA also would have to develop public
education and research programs for food safety.
! Specify prohibited acts; provide authority to detain, seize, condemn,
and/or recall foods suspected of being unsafe or misbranded (see
also next section for details). The proposed bills also spell out
enforcement and hearings procedures and include “whistleblower
protection” for public and private employees who report safety
problems.
Food Import Oversight
Concerns about perceived gaps in import safeguards, including what many
believe have been insufficient funds, are not new. However, they have gained wider
interest in recent years as U.S. food imports log significant increases, fueled by the
globalization of production and processing and by consumers’ desire for a wider
variety of nutritious and inexpensive foods year-round. Total imports of agricultural
and seafood products increased from 31.7 million metric tons (MMT) and $39 billion
in FY1996 to 46.1 MMT and $76.9 billion in FY2006, and they continue to rise. At
issue is whether U.S. safeguards, which generally were created at a time when most
Americans obtained their foods domestically, sufficiently protect public health.
The issue has been explored at a number of congressional hearings in 2007, and
several bills have been offered to change the current system. Those who oppose
major changes assert that imported foods are subject to the same safety standards as
— and/or that pose no greater hazards than — domestically produced foods. They

CRS-5
also contend that smarter allocation of existing resources, and the food industry’s
own controls, should address any problems which arise.6
Assured Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2997)
Introduced in July 2007 by Representative Kaptur, H.R. 2997 would require
USDA and FDA jointly to establish a program requiring all imported food items to
be accompanied by a certificate of safety issued by the government of the exporting
country. (The bill does not reference existing food safety authorities.) Items could
be excepted if they were from a country that has not been the source of a
contaminated food item involved in a health or safety recall in the preceding five
years.

If a certified item is found to be unsafe, imports would be prohibited until U.S.
officials receive an opportunity to inspect the production facility to assess whether
corrections have been made, and determine that the country has taken adequate
correction actions. Another provision would require USDA and FDA to prepare a
report on, and implement, the minimum amount of inspection necessary to assure the
safety of imports.
A key provision in the bill would require the collection of user fees to defray the
increased costs of such inspections, including the costs of hiring additional
inspectors. The fees would be assessed beginning in FY2008 on each line item of
food imported, up to $20 per line (USDA and FDA would define the meaning of
this). The bill also provides for fee adjustments, including for inflation.
Imported Food Safety Act of 2007 (S. 1776)
Also introduced in July 2007, S. 1776 by Senator Durbin is similar in intent to
H.R. 2997. However, it amends the FFDCA and applies only to FDA-regulated food
imports with regard to certifications and user fees. The bill would require HHS to
establish a certification system within two years of enactment, which would apply to
a foreign government or foreign food establishment seeking to import food to the
United States. Before granting a certificate to a foreign government, HHS would
have to review, audit, and certify that its food safety program is at least equivalent
to the U.S. program. Before granting a certificate to a foreign establishment, HHS
would have to certify, based on an onsite inspection, that the establishment has
equivalent food safety programs and procedures.7
Certifications would be valid for no more than five years; HHS would be
required to audit foreign governments and establishments at least every five years to
determine their continued compliance. S. 1776 would authorize HHS to withdraw
certification of a food if it is linked to an outbreak of a human illness, if the foreign
6 See also CRS Report RS22664, U.S. Food and Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and
Selected Issues
, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
7 Establishments generally are defined here as any place that processes, holds, or transports
food or food ingredients, with the explicit exceptions of farms, and of restaurants and other
retailers.

CRS-6
program is no longer equivalent to the U.S. program, or if U.S. officials are not
permitted to conduct an audit or investigation.
Like H.R. 2997, S. 1776 would set a user fee of up to $20 per line item with
adjustments for inflation, among other similarities. Unlike H.R. 2997, the Senate bill
provides more detail on how the fees will be used. S. 1776 directs that not less than
50% be used for border inspections and not more than 50% be used for a newly
authorized research program under the bill. Such research would focus on improved
testing and sampling techniques to check for adulteration of imported foods.
Import Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 3100)
This bill was introduced in July 2007 by Representative Kirk. The measure
would amend the FFDCA to significantly increase civil penalties for violations of the
act and also would increase the authorization of appropriations for FDA inspection
of imported processed foods (and toothpaste) by $20 million annually through
FY2012.
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654)
Section 208 of these comprehensive bills (described in the prior section) would
require foreign governments or foreign establishments that want to export food to the
United States to be certified by the new FSA. Such certification would be granted
to a foreign government and/or establishment if it could demonstrate that its food
safety programs are at least equivalent to the U.S. program; certification of a foreign
establishment would have to be based on an onsite inspection. Certifications would
be valid for no more than five years. Certification of a food establishment could be
revoked any time if it is linked to a foodborne illness, if the country’s or
establishment’s safeguards are found to be no longer equivalent, or if U.S. officials
are refused permission to conduct an audit or investigation.
FSA also is to “routinely inspect” food and food animals via a physical
examination before they enter the United States to ensure they are safe and properly
labeled. Section 402 of the bills provides for holding a food at ports of entry for up
to 24 hours if there is reason to believe it is unsafe or misbranded.
Human and Pet Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2108/S. 1274)
Section 419 of these companion bills (which are described in more detail in the
next section) contain certification and auditing requirements similar to those in S.
1776, including the five-year limit on approvals and a requirement to routinely
inspect imports (see above). Another provision in H.R. 2108/S. 1274 requires
importers to give HHS representatives access to inspection-related records.
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082)
A provision in the Food Safety title (VI) of this Senate-passed bill would require
an annual report to Congress on the number and amount of FDA-regulated food
products imported by country and type of food, the number of inspectors and

CRS-7
inspections performed, and aggregated data on inspection findings, including
violations and enforcement actions. Elsewhere in the bill, Section 513 would
prohibit imports of food products from any foreign facility that refuses to admit
(upon request) U.S. inspectors to their facility, or delays such access.8
Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007 (Dingell Draft)
Representative Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, in August 2007 began circulating a “discussion draft” of his legislation
to reform and fund food import inspections, among other provisions, most of which
would be amendments to the FFDCA. The draft bill would require the collection of
user fees on imported foods, beginning in FY2008. As in other proposed bills, the
fees would be based on the number of entry lines of food, but HHS-FDA could set
them as high as $50 per line, with provisions for inflation adjustments. At least 90%
of the fee revenue would have to be used to carry out import inspection activities,
with priority on inspections at ports of entry and on detection of intentionally
adulterated food. Not more than 10% of the revenue could be used for the bill’s
newly authorized research into testing techniques for use in import inspections.9
This section of the Dingell draft reiterates that all imported foods must meet the
same standards as U.S.-produced foods; entry would be denied to foods that do not.
Each foreign facility from which imported food originated would have to obtain an
HHS-issued certification that it maintains a program using reliable analytical
methods to ensure compliance with all U.S. standards. Failure to do so could result
in revocation of the certificate. HHS would be charged with enforcing the provision
through random inspections, sampling and testing.
Another proposed amendment would require HHS-FDA to restrict imports of
all foods to ports of entry located in a metropolitan area that has an FDA laboratory
capable of testing such foods, although waivers could be granted allowing other ports
to be used if the food in question poses no increased likelihood of adverse health
consequences. At a July 17, 2007 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the panel’s investigators testified that
FDA border inspectors currently had to cover 326 ports of entry, greatly straining the
existing workforce. Another topic of the hearing was FDA’s tentative decision to
close a number of its 13 field laboratories, which many subcommittee Members
strongly criticized. The Dingell draft would prohibit HHS from closing any of these
laboratories, as well as any of the 20 FDA district offices or their compliance or
inspection activities.
8 This bill is now in conference; the House bill which lacks these Senate provisions is H.R.
2900. See Table 13, Food Safety, in CRS Report RL34102, FDA Legislation in the 110th
Congress: A Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 1082 and H.R. 2900
, by Erin D. Williams,
Susan Thaul, Sarah A. Lister, Donna V. Porter, and C. Stephen Redhead. Also see CRS
Report RL34098, FDA Legislation in the 110th Congress: A Guide to S. 1082 and H.R.
2900
, by Erin D. Williams, Susan Thaul, and Donna V. Porter.
9 The draft bill also would implement a similar fee system for imported drugs.

CRS-8
The Dingell draft also would require labeling of all foods to identify the country
of origin, with implementation details left to HHS; and require the department to
establish a voluntary “Safe and Secure Food Importation Program” under which food
importing companies could receive expedited movement of their products in
exchange for abiding by HHS-developed food safety and security guidelines.
Notification and Recall Authority; Product Tracing
Currently, neither FDA nor FSIS has explicit statutory authority to order a recall
of adulterated foods, require a company to notify them when it has distributed such
foods, or impose penalties if recall requirements are violated. (FDA can order such
recalls for one food, infant formula, and for unsafe medical products, such as
pacemakers, as can other agencies for unsafe toys or automobiles.) These gaps
increase the possibility that unsafe food will not be recovered and will be consumed,
the GAO has concluded.10
Others counter that the agencies already have sufficient authorities to keep such
products from reaching consumers. FSIS’ statutory authority enables it to detain
meat and poultry products of concern for up to 20 days, and FDA’s authority enables
it to detain the foods it regulates for up to 30 days. Both agencies can, with a court’s
permission, seize, condemn and destroy unsafe food.11 Finally, private companies
rarely if ever fail to order a voluntary recall when problems arise; these are frequently
announced by the government, and become widely publicized. Nonetheless, a
number of Members of Congress support GAO’s recommendation that legislation be
considered to strengthen notification and recall authorities.
Recalls imply that industry and government officials have the ability to quickly
trace the movement of products. Some argue that improved traceability capabilities
would enable either USDA (in the case of meat and poultry products) or FDA (in the
case of other foods) to quickly determine a product’s source and whereabouts, to
prevent or contain foodborne illness outbreaks. The traceability issue has also been
debated in connection with protecting against agroterrorism, and for verifying the
U.S. origin of live animals and their products for marketing, trade and/or animal
health purposes, for example.12
Human and Pet Food Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2108/S. 1274)
These companion bills were introduced in May 2007 by Representative DeLauro
and Senator Durbin, respectively. A key provision in the bills would require any
10 See, for example, Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and
Complete Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food
(GAO-05-51), October 2004.
11 A court’s permission may not be needed in all cases; for example the FFDCA [§801(j)(1)]
empowers officials to hold an import for up to 24 hours if there is “... credible evidence or
information indicating that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals ...”
12 See also CRS Report RS22653, Animal Identification: Overview and Issues, by Geoffrey
S. Becker.

CRS-9
person with reason to believe that a food introduced into interstate commerce may
be in violation of the FFDCA (i.e., adulterated or mislabeled) to notify HHS of the
identity and location of the food. Whenever HHS determines that a food is in
violation, it would have to give appropriate persons (retailers, manufacturers,
importers or distributors) an opportunity to cease distribution, recall it, and notify all
persons involved including consumers and public health officials. Civil and criminal
penalties would be spelled out for violations of the notification and recall standards.
Persons would not be liable for penalties if they had a guaranty signed by the food
provider that it was not adulterated or misbranded.
In cases where a person did not carry out prescribed actions in a voluntary recall,
HHS could conduct a mandatory recall. More specifically, it would be authorized to
seize the food, order that distribution be ceased, notify all persons to immediately
cease its distribution, and to notify affected consumers and public health officials.
Anyone producing or otherwise handling a recalled food would have to make
available any necessary records. Also, HHS would be required to work with
companies, professional associations, and other organizations to collect and
communicate information about recalls of human or pet food and to post information
regarding the products on an accessible FDA Internet website.
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082)
Introduced in April 2007 by Senator Kennedy as the Prescription Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2007, S. 1082 was extensively amended and retitled prior to full
Senate passage in May 2007. One of the sections added before passage is a new Title
VI on food safety that among other things requires HHS to establish, within FDA, an
“Adulterated Food Registry.” Responsible parties and importers would be required
to report detailed information (outlined in the bill) about cases of actual or suspected
food adulteration.13 HHS in turn would have to issue an alert if the Registry shows
that a reportable adulterated food “has been associated with repeated and separate
outbreaks of illness or has been repeatedly determined to be adulterated.” The
responsible party or importer would have to maintain records on such foods and
permit their inspection by the FDA. HHS would have to issue regulations for
reporting to the Registry.
Another recall-related provision in Title VI would require HHS to work with
companies, professional associations, and other organizations to collect and
communicate information about recalls of human or pet food and to post information
regarding the products on an accessible FDA Internet website.14
13 Responsible parties are defined to mean facilities that have to register with FDA under
Section 415 of the FFDCA, i.e., “... any facility engaged in manufacturing, processing,
packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States ...” Exempted are farms,
restaurants, and other retail establishments.
14 Other food-related provisions in S. 1082 include a required annual FDA report on the
Administration’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program; a required FDA report on whether
substances used to preserve the appearance of fresh meat may create any health risk or
mislead consumers; authorization for HHS to enhance as necessary FDA inspection of
(continued...)

CRS-10
Safe Food Act of 2007 (H.R. 1148/S. 654)
Section 403 of both bills would require any person with reason to believe that
a food entering commerce to be in violation of the law to immediately notify FSA.
Section 210 would require establishment of a national system to trace food and food
animals from point of origin to retail sale.
Meat and Poultry Products Traceability and Safety Act
of 2007 (S. 1292)

Introduced by Senator Schumer in May 2007, S. 1292 would require USDA to
establish a meat and poultry traceability system covering all stages of production,
processing, and marketing, from live animals before slaughter to distribution of
finished products to the ultimate consumer. The bill also would require persons and
companies to maintain records and allow access to them when needed to trace
products.
Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007 (Dingell Draft)
The Dingell draft bill would provide the Secretary of HHS with the authority to
require appropriate persons to cease distribution of a food if he/she finds there is a
reasonable probability that it would cause serious, adverse health consequences.
State-Inspected Meat and Poultry
Federal law currently prohibits state-inspected meat and poultry plants from
shipping their products across state lines, a ban that many states and small plants
want to overturn. Limiting state-inspected products to intrastate commerce is unfair,
these states and plants argue, because their programs must be, and are, “at least
equal” to the federal system. State-inspected plants cannot ship interstate. Foreign
plants operating under USDA-approved foreign programs, which must be
“equivalent” to the U.S. program, can export meat and poultry products into and sell
them anywhere in the United States.
Those who oppose allowing state-only-inspected products into interstate
commerce argue that state programs are not required to have the same level of safety
oversight as the federal, or even the foreign, plants. For example, foreign-processed
products are subject to U.S. import reinspection at ports of entry. These opponents
of interstate shipment note that a recent FSIS review, which found all 28 state
14 (...continued)
seafood and aquaculture products; a required report on seafood safety risks, seafood
inspection activities, and the feasibility of a traceability system to trace the plant of origin
for all domestic and imported seafood products. The House-passed version of the FDA user
fee legislation (H.R. 2900) lacks food safety provisions. For more information see
references to the CRS reports in footnote 8.

CRS-11
programs to be at least equal to the U.S. program, was based largely on self-
assessments.15
New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act
of 2007 (H.R. 2315/S. 1150)

These companion bills were introduced, respectively, by Representative
Pomeroy in May and Senator Hatch in April 2007. They would authorize USDA to
approve state-inspected meat and poultry products to enter interstate commerce, so
long as the state program enforces all of the mandatory requirements in place for the
federal program, among other stipulations. One of these stipulations would be a
requirement that the states also implement all recommended changes identified by
USDA as necessary to enable transition to a state-run program using USDA
standards. States could continue to receive federal reimbursements for up to 50% of
their inspection program costs. The bills also contain language that could enable
currently federally-inspected plants to opt for state inspection.
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419)
This omnibus farm bill was reported by the House Agriculture Committee and
passed by the House in July 2007. Section 11103 encompasses the key provisions
of H.R. 2315/S. 1150 (see above).
H.R. 1760/S. 1149
Introduced in March 2007 by Representative Kind and in April 2007 by Senator
Kohl, these companion bills would strike the provisions in the FMIA and PPIA that
prohibit the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry. The bills also
would set the federal reimbursement rate for state costs at no less than 50% and no
more than 60%.
Antibiotic Use in Animals
Public health experts have expressed concern about the increasing problem of
patients who do not respond to certain medical treatments because the
microorganisms causing their illness are resistant to the antibiotics being used. Such
antimicrobial resistance has been linked to a number of causes such as overuse by
medical professionals and their patients, and the wide use of antibiotics for
nontherapeutic (essentially nonmedical) purposes in food animals. Animal producers
administer antibiotics in feed for chickens, cattle, hogs, and farmed seafood not only
to treat and prevent diseases but also to encourage growth and efficient use of feed
rations. Some argue that nontherapeutic uses — which have increased as more
animals are raised in large-scale confinement facilities — should be severely
15 This section is from CRS Report RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background
and Selected Issues
. See also FSIS Review of State Programs: Summary Report (January
2007) at [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Review_of_State_Programs.pdf].

CRS-12
constrained and/or limited to drugs not associated with human medical treatments.
Others oppose this approach, arguing that many animal production operations would
not be commercially viable without the drugs’ routine use and/or that the linkage
between such use and antimicrobial resistance lacks a strong scientific basis.16
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act
of 2007 (H.R. 962/S. 549)

H.R. 962 was introduced in February by Representative Slaughter; S. 549 was
introduced the same month by Senator Kennedy. These companion measures would
amend the FFDCA to define a nontherapeutic use of a critical antimicrobial animal
drug (which is also defined) as “any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an
animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth
promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine
purpose.” Within two years, HHS would have to withdraw approval of such
nontherapeutic drug use unless the drug application holder can demonstrate there is
“reasonable certainty that no harm to human health” will occur. The bills also
contain data collection and reporting requirements for drug manufacturers.
Biotechnology
Since genetically engineered (GE, sometimes called genetically modified, or
GM) crop varieties first became commercially available in the mid-1990s, U.S.
soybean, cotton, and corn farmers have been rapidly adopting them to lower
production costs and raise crop yields. A number of animal biotechnologies
(including cloning) also are becoming available. Members of Congress, particularly
from agricultural areas, generally favor the adoption of such technologies, along with
publicly-supported research and other activities aimed at gaining their acceptance in
foreign and domestic markets. Others question the food safety impacts of GE crops
and animals, and whether the current U.S. regulatory framework, which is based
primarily upon statutory authorities enacted before the rise of agricultural
biotechnology, is still adequate.
Cloned Food Labeling Act (H.R. 992/S. 414)
Senator Mikulski introduced S. 414 in January 2007; Representative DeLauro
introduced the House version (H.R. 992) in February 2007. The bills would amend
the FFDCA and FMIA (but not the PPIA) to require that products from cloned
animals or their progeny be so labeled. USDA and HHS would have to require that
anyone who “handles, or distributes a cloned product for retail sale [to] maintain a
verifiable recordkeeping audit trail” to verify compliance.
16 This discussion is based largely on a section in archived CRS Report RL31853, Food
Safety Issues in the 109th Congress.
Also see the FDA website “New Guidance for Industry
on Antimicrobial Drugs for Food Animals: Questions and Answers,” accessed at
[http://www.fda.gov/oc/antimicrobial/questions.html].

CRS-13
H.R. 1396/S. 536
The House version of these companion bills was introduced in March 2007 by
Representative Woolsey. The Senate version was introduced in February 2007 by
Senator Kohl. The bills would amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 6504) to prohibit the use of the “organic” label on food products from cloned
livestock or their progeny.
Produce Safety
Increased consumption of fresh produce, particularly of leafy vegetables such
as spinach and lettuce, is viewed as a positive trend from a nutritional perspective,
but it has presented new challenges with regard to food safety. These challenges
have been underlined by reports, starting in September 2006, of foodborne illnesses
linked to California spinach and lettuce contaminated with the bacterium E. coli
O157:H7
, among other recent incidents. There is ongoing debate regarding the
extent to which FDA, which oversees the safety of all produce, has the authority to
regulate safety on the farm, one of the potential sources of such contamination. The
agency and other public officials have been encouraging the industry to develop and
follow voluntary guidelines for growing and packing safe products.17
Spinach Research and Recovery Act of 2007 (H.R. 912)
Introduced by Representative Farr in February 2007, this bill would authorize
the appropriation in FY2008 of $20 million for USDA-sponsored research and $6
million for FDA research on enhancing the safety of perishable agricultural
commodities (fresh and fresh frozen fruits and vegetables). Growers and first
handlers unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health
Advisory issued on September 14, 2006 would be eligible for payments of up to 75%
of the value of the unmarketed crop.
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082)
Section 604 directs HHS to work with states on programs and activities to
improve the safety of fresh and processed produce with the goal of strengthening
state programs.
Appropriations
Some critics argue that — irrespective of the need, if any, to reform food safety
statutes and organization — the primary problem is that the agencies lack sufficient
funding and staff to carry out their congressionally-mandated responsibilities to
ensure a safe food supply. From time to time in the past, FSIS has had difficulty in
17 See also archived CRS Report RL33722, Food Safety: Federal and State Response to the
Spinach
E. coli Outbreak, by Donna V. Porter.

CRS-14
adequately staffing its service obligations to the meat and poultry industries. Usually
a combination of factors causes these shortages, such as new technologies that
increase plant production speeds and volume, or insufficient appropriated funds to
hire additional inspectors at times of unexpected increases in demand for inspections,
for example. At FDA, the food safety budget has declined from almost half of the
agency’s total spending in 1971 to about one-fourth of the budget currently, partly
because the drug budget has expanded due to collection of drug approval user fees.
FDA staffing in programs not funded by user fees, including but not limited to food
safety, has decreased significantly, according to a former high-level official.18 This
has occurred at a time when FDA faces new challenges such as rising food imports
due to globalization of the U.S. food supply.
Although it requested modest increases in both FDA and FSIS in its FY2008
budget, the Administration also has stressed that it can meet these challenges by
strengthening the scientific basis of its programs, improving risk-based targeting of
inspection resources, and developing stronger partnerships with domestic and
international stakeholders. At recent hearings, some Members of Congress have
expressed skepticism that these efforts can succeed without additional funds.19
Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 3161, S. 1859)

FDA and FSIS receive their annual funding through this appropriations act. The
House measure was reported by the Appropriations Committee in late July 2007
(H.Rept. 110-258) and passed by the full House in early August 2007. The Senate
version was reported by the Appropriations Committee also in late July 2007 (S.Rept.
110-134).
The House-passed bill would provide new budget authority in FY2008 of
$503.7 million for the FDA foods program area, compared with an FY2007 enacted
level of $457.1 million and an Administration FY2008 request of $466.7 million.
The accompanying House report directs the agency to develop a performance plan
that establishes measurable benchmarks for improvements in its food safety
activities, and provides, within the overall increase, $28 million for its
implementation. The report also directs that $319.1 million of the agency
appropriation be spent for food-related field activities. The Senate-reported bill
would provide $522.5 million for the food program area. Within that amount, at least
$21 million is to be used to hire inspectors for both imported and foreign products
and at least $11 million to create federal and state rapid response teams for food
safety problems (specifically with produce), among other directives in the Senate
report. FDA food safety activities are not supplemented by user fees.
18 Statement of William K. Hubbard, former FDA Associate Commissioner, before the
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 17, 2007.
19 See, for example, “House members grill FDA chief over produce safety, increased
inspections,” Food Chemical News, March 5, 2007; “FDA Chief Pressed on Below-Inflation
Budget Hike for Food Safety,” CQ Budget Tracker News, March 1, 2007.

CRS-15
For FSIS, the House-passed bill provides $930.1 million in FY2008
appropriations, the same as the Administration request. The Senate-reported bill
recommends $930.6 million for FSIS, or $38.5 million above the FY2007 level. The
congressional appropriation would be supplemented in FY2007 by an estimated $135
million in existing user fees. Neither the House nor Senate version endorses new
user fees; the Administration was seeking another $96 million in such fees, although
not beginning until FY2009. The accompanying House and Senate committee
reports state that the appropriation includes $28.3 million and $27.3 million for pay
costs and related cost of living increases, respectively. The House report states that
an increase of $6.5 million is to fill FSIS inspector vacancies; the Senate report notes
that its funding level will enable FSIS to hire 78 additional inspectors and 13
additional investigative staff in FY2008.20
20 See CRS Report RL3413, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations,
coordinated by Jim Monke.

CRS-16
Appendix A: Selected Food Safety Bills at a Glance
Bill
Contents
Status
H.R. 912 (Farr)
Authorizes new appropriations for produce safety research;
Introduced 2/8/07;
Spinach Research
provides for payments for spinach industry losses after the
referred to Agriculture
and Recovery Act of
FDA September 2007 health advisory on fresh produce.
2007
H.R. 962/S. 549
Requires FDA to withdraw approval of nontherapeutic uses
H.R. 962 introduced
(Slaughter/Kennedy)
in food animals of drugs used to treat human diseases,
2/8/07; referred to
Preservation of
unless manufacturer can reasonably demonstrate no harm to
Energy and Commerce
Antibiotics for
human health due to antimicrobial resistance.
Committee
Medical Treatment
Act of 2007

S. 549 introduced
2/12/07; referred to
Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions
H.R. 992/S. 414
Amends the FFDCA and the FMIA to deem as misbranded
H.R. 992 introduced
(DeLauro/Mikulski)
a food or meat food product that does not bear a
2/12/07; referred to
Cloned Food
conspicuous label stating that it is derived from a cloned
Agriculture and to
Labeling Act
animal; requires verifiable recordkeeping.
Energy and Commerce
S. 414 introduced
1/26/07 and referred to
Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions
H.R. 1148/S. 654
Transfers the responsibilities and resources of existing
H.R. 1148 introduced
(DeLauro/Durbin)
food safety agencies into a new independent Food Safety
2/16/07; referred to
Safe Food Act of
Administration to administer and enforce all federal food
Energy and Commerce
2007
safety laws. Requires the Administrator to: (1) administer a
and to Agriculture
national food safety program based on an analysis of the
food hazards; (2) establish standards for processors of food
S. 654 introduced
and food establishments; (3) establish a certification system
2/15/07; referred to
for foreign governments or food establishments seeking to
Agriculture
import food; (4) establish requirements for tracing food and
food-producing animals from point of origin to retail sale;
(5) maintain an active surveillance system of food, food
products, and epidemiological evidence; (6) establish a
sampling system to monitor contaminants in food; (7) rank
and analyze hazards in the food supply; (8) establish a
national public education campaign on food safety; and (9)
conduct research relating to food safety. Sets forth
provisions regarding prohibited acts, administrative
detention, condemnation, recall, penalties for violations of
food safety laws, whistle blower protection.
H.R. 1396/S. 536
Amends the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to
H.R. 1396 introduced
(Woolsey/Kohl)
prohibit the labeling of cloned livestock and products
3/7/07; referred to
(no title)
derived from cloned livestock as organic.
Agriculture
S. 536 introduced

CRS-17
Bill
Contents
Status
2/8/07; referred to
Agriculture
H.R. 1760/S. 1149
Amends the FMIA and the PPIA to authorize the interstate
H.R. 1760 introduced
(Kind/Kohl)
distribution of state inspected meat and poultry if the
3/29/07; referred to
(no title)
Secretary of Agriculture determines that state inspection
Agriculture
requirements are at least equal to federal inspection
S. 1149 introduced
requirements; provides for partial reimbursement for
4/18/07; referred to
inspection costs.
Agriculture
H.R. 2108/S. 1274
Amends the FFDCA to require a person that has reason to
H.R. 2108 introduced
(DeLauro/Durbin)
believe that any food introduced into interstate commerce
5/2/07; referred to
Human and Pet Food
may be in violation of the FFDCA to immediately notify
Energy and Commerce
Safety Act of 2007
HHS of its identity and location. If a food may pose a
threat to public health, authorizes and requires HHS to
S. 1274 introduced
implement a series of specific notification, detention, and
5/2/07; referred to
recall procedures. Sets forth certification and inspection
Health, Education,
requirements for foreign governments and foreign firms
Labor and Pensions
seeking to import food into the United States. Also requires
new HHS measures to prevent contamination of pet food.
H.R. 2315/S. 1150
Directs USDA to review each state’s meat and poultry
H.R. 2315 introduced
(Pomeroy/Hatch)
inspection program for effectiveness and steps needed to
5/15/07; referred to
New Markets for
convert to program described as follows. Amends the
Agriculture
State-Inspected Meat
FMIA and PPIA to authorize USDA to approve a qualifying
and Poultry Act of
state meat and/or poultry inspection program and allow the
S. 1150 introduced
2007
shipment in commerce (including interstate) of meat and
4/18/07; referred to
poultry products so inspected. Also provides ability for
Agriculture
federally inspected plants to convert to the new state
inspection program.
Similar provisions
incorporated by
Also provides for annual USDA reviews of state plans;
Agriculture Committee
federal-state cooperative agreements and partial
into H.R. 2419, the
reimbursement for costs of meeting federal requirements;
omnibus farm bill
and limitations on size of plants permitted to enter the new
(Farm, Nutrition, and
program. Prohibits from state inspection plan participation
Bioenergy Act of 2007;
establishments with more than 50 employees, with some
see below)
exceptions. Exempts from inspection provisions retail
stores and restaurants (including specified central kitchen
facilities).
H.R. 2419 (Peterson)
Omnibus farm bill includes above provisions similar to
H.R. 2419 introduced
Farm, Nutrition, and
those in H.R. 2315/S. 1150 (see above)
5/22/07; referred to
Bioenergy Act of
Agriculture, which
2007
reported it as amended
on 7/23/07 (H.Rept.
110-256)
Passed by full House on
7/27/07
H.R. 2997 (Kaptur)
Directs USDA and FDA to jointly establish a certification
Introduced 7/11/07;
Assured Food Safety
program required for all food imports, to be issued by the
referred to Energy and

CRS-18
Bill
Contents
Status
Act of 2007
country of origin. Directs USDA and FDA to prohibit
Commerce, to
importation of a product that fails safety standards until
Agriculture, and to
they can inspect the foreign production facilities and
Ways and Means
determine that sufficient corrections have been made, to be
followed by more rigorous inspections for three years.
Establishes user fees on food imports of up to $20 per line
item imported, to pay for inspections.
H.R. 3100 (Kirk)
Amends the FFDCA to authorize additional appropriations
Introduced 7/19/07;
Import Safety Act of
for FDA of $20 million for each of FY2008 through
referred to Energy and
2007
FY2012 for import inspections of processed food (and
Commerce
toothpaste). Significantly increases civil penalties for food-
safety related violations.
H.R. 3161, S. 1859
Makes FY2008 appropriations for the: (1) U.S. Department
H.R. 3161 introduced
(DeLauro/Kohl)
of Agriculture; (2) Food and Drug Administration; (3)
and reported as an
Agriculture, Rural
Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and (4) Farm
original measure
Development, Food
Credit Administration. Specifies certain uses and limits on
7/24/07 by
and Drug
or prohibitions against the use of funds appropriated by this
Appropriations (H.Rept.
Administration, and
act. (See text of this CRS report for details on food safety-
110-258)
Related Agencies
related funding for FDA and USDA)
Appropriations Act,
Passed by House 8/2/07
2008
S. 1859 introduced and
reported 7/24/07 by
Appropriations (S.Rept.
110-134)
Dingell Draft
Reiterates that all imported foods must meet the same
Not yet introduced;
Food and Drug
standards as U.S.-produced foods; entry would be denied to
draft released for
Import Safety Act of
foods that do not. Each foreign facility producing food for
discussion 8/3/07.
2007
U.S. import must obtain an HHS-issued certification that it
has a program, using reliable analytical methods, to ensure
compliance with all U.S. standards. Failure to do so could
result in revocation of the certificate. Charges HHS with
enforcing the provision through random inspections,
sampling and testing. Requires user fees on imported
foods, beginning in FY2008, of as much as $50 per line. At
least 90% of the fee revenue must be used to carry out
import inspection, with priority on inspections at ports of
entry and on detection of intentionally adulterated food.
Not more than 10% of the revenue may be used for a newly
authorized research into testing techniques for use in import
inspections.
Also requires HHS-FDA to restrict imports of all foods to
ports of entry located in a metropolitan area that has an
FDA laboratory capable of testing such foods, although
waivers could be granted in limited circumstances.
Prohibits HHS from closing any of the current FDA
laboratories, or any of the 20 FDA district offices. Also
requires the labeling of all foods to identify the country of
origin; establishment of a voluntary “Safe and Secure Food

CRS-19
Bill
Contents
Status
Importation Program” under which food importing
companies could receive expedited movement of their
products.
S. 1082 (Kennedy)
Requires regulations on processing and ingredient standards
Introduced 4/10/07;
Food and Drug
for pet food, animal waste and ingredient definitions, and
referred to Health,
Administration
on updated standards for pet food labeling; also requires an
Education, Labor, and
Revitalization Act
early warning and surveillance system to identify pet food
Pensions, which
adulteration and associated disease outbreaks. Requires
reported it 4/24/07
HHS to collect, aggregate, and disseminate information on
Kennedy with an
recalls of either human or pet foods; to coordinate
amendment in the nature
activities, provide assistance and support staff training for
of a substitute and an
states to improve food safety programs for fresh and
amendment to the
processed produce, including at retail food establishments,
title.Kennedy with an
and to establish procedures and requirements for processed
amendment in the nature
produce.
of a substitute and an
amendment to the title.
Also amends the FFDCA, to require a registry on
(No written report)
adulterated foods, and spells out notification and
recordkeeping requirements, including standards and
Passed by Senate 5/9/07
thresholds for reporting instances of suspected reportable
food adulteration and notification procedures. Also bans
imports from any foreign food facility that denies access to
U.S. inspectors; requires the preparation of various food
safety-related reports; and provides for enhanced FDA
inspection of aquaculture and seafood through partnerships.
S. 1292 (Schumer)
Amends the FMIA and PPIA to require USDA to establish
Introduced 5/3/07;
Meat and Poultry
a traceability system for all stages of production,
referred to Agriculture
Products
processing, and distribution of meat and meat food products
Traceability and
and poultry and poultry food products. The system must be
Safety Act of 2007
able to trace each animal or group of animals to any
location the animal was held before slaughter; and each
carcass, carcass part and food product forward from
slaughter through processing and distribution to the
ultimate consumer. Also authorizes recordkeeping
requirements.
S. 1776 (Durbin)
Amends the FFDCA to require HHS Secretary to establish
Introduced 7/12/07;
Imported Food
within two years a certification system for foreign
referred to Agriculture
Safety Act of 2007
governments and foreign establishments seeking to import
food into the United States. Requires HHS to review, audit,
and certify a foreign government before certifying its
program as at least equivalent to the U.S. system;
additionally requires an onsite inspection of foreign
establishments before certifying equivalency. Requires
audits at least every five years to determine continued
compliance, and provides for decertification if a food
import is linked to human illness outbreaks. Establishes
user fees of up to $20 per line item imported, with no less
than 50% of revenues to be used for border inspections and
no more than 50% for research on testing and sampling
techniques.