Order Code RS22734
October 5, 2007
Food Safety: Oversight and Current Issues
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
A series of widely publicized food safety problems, including concerns about
adulterated pet food ingredients and farmed seafood from China, illnesses linked to E.
coli O157:H7 on leafy produce from California and in meat products, and a national
recall of peanut butter due to Salmonella contamination, have made food safety an issue
in the 110th Congress. Oversight hearings are underway, and various bills have been
proposed to alter the current food safety system and/or increase spending.1
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.2 At issue is whether the current system
has the resources and structural organization to protect consumers from these dangers.
Have federal food safety laws, first enacted in the early 1900s, 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 that was
found to carry 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
1 This report supersedes CRS Report RL34152, Food Safety: Selected Issues and Bills in the 110th
Congress, by Geoffrey S. Becker.
2 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/].
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, 1999, pp. 607-625.

---

CRS-2
limit future contamination. In February 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) announced a nationwide recall of peanut butter due to Salmonella contamination,
after hundreds of illnesses, dating back to August 2006 and linked to the bacterium, were
reported.3 In late September 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
announced a voluntary recall of nearly 22 million pounds of ground beef products after
reports of illnesses were linked to E .coli O157:H7 in some of them.
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.4 In June 2007,
FDA announced that it was detaining 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. FDA officials also have stated at several
hearings that they are working on a comprehensive new food protection plan (covering
domestic as well as import risks), expected to be announced in November 2007.
Perceived gaps in federal safeguards are being explored at a number of congressional
hearings in 2007. Several lawmakers 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. Some proposed bills focus on ensuring the safety
of imported foods and/or strengthening the ability of federal agencies to identify and recall
contaminated products; others have called for a reorganization of food safety agencies and
responsibilities, or for increased funding for current programs. Each of these bills seeks
to address one or more of the broad policy concerns outlined below.
If and when bills progress through the committees of jurisdiction and onto the House
and Senate floors, they might be considered either independently, or attached to other,
larger measures that Congress is considering. For example, food safety provisions were
added to the Senate version of an FDA bill (S. 1082) that eventually was passed by both
bodies as H.R. 3580 and signed into law as P.L. 110-85. Other potential vehicles are
annual appropriations for agriculture and FDA (such as H.R. 3161 and S. 1859) and an
omnibus farm bill. For example, the House-passed version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419)
would lift a ban on the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat and poultry.
The Food Safety System
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified 15 federal agencies
collectively administering at least 30 laws related to food safety.5 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 USDA, together comprise the majority of both
the total funding and the total staffing of the government’s food regulatory system.
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
3 For sources and updates see the FDA website: [http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html].
4 FDA has the same basic safety standards for human foods and animal feeds, including pet food.
5 High Risk Series: An Update (GAO-07-310), January 2007.

---

CRS-3
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.).
Reorganization of Food Safety Responsibilities
Critics have argued for decades that food safety has been compromised by what
many maintain is fragmented oversight that is dispersed over too many agencies, poorly
coordinated, and inefficient. Among these critics is GAO, which in its January 2007
report designated food safety oversight as one of 29 “high risk” federal program areas.
Defenders of the current system assert that it already is scientifically based, that the
statutes are adequate, and that food companies already produce and distribute safe food,
making the United States a model for food safety around the world.
Companion bills H.R. 1148 and S. 654 seek to reorganize the federal agencies
responsible for food safety, as well as to overhaul the safeguards themselves. Another bill
(H.R. 3624) — although it would not transfer authorities and agency responsibilities as
in H.R. 1148/S. 654 — does propose major changes in how the current system is
administered by FDA.6 Among other developments, the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee stated recently that he wants to establish, in the upcoming Senate
farm bill, an expert panel on food safety to recommend improvements, and that he
supports a suggestion by Senator Durbin to end, by 2010, authority for all U.S. food safety
agencies in order to encourage scrutiny of and improvements in the current system.
Funding
Some critics argue that the primary problem today is that food safety agencies lack
sufficient funding and staff to carry out their congressionally mandated responsibilities.
From time to time in the past, FSIS has had difficulty in adequately staffing its service
obligations to the meat and poultry industries. At FDA, officials concede that they lack
the necessary resources to expand in some areas, notably import safety. Although it
requested modest FY2008 increases for both FDA and FSIS, the Administration also has
stressed that it can meet its 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. Besides increased appropriations, new user fees have been proposed —
the latter viewed with suspicion by those who argue that food safety should not be funded
by the regulated industries. H.R. 3161 and S. 1859, which provide FY2008
appropriations for FDA and FSIS food safety activities, had not yet passed Congress in
early October 2007. H.J .Res. 52 (P.L. 110-92) is funding them at FY2007 levels through
mid-November.
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
6 In fact, a number of the bills described in other sections of this CRS report also envision
significant system changes.

---

CRS-4
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) valued at $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, adequately protect public health.
As of October 1, 2007, nearly a dozen food safety bills were pending that contain
provisions addressing some aspect of food import safety. Several focus almost
exclusively on the issue. Many of these bills (including H.R. 2997, S. 1776, H.R. 1148/S.
654, H.R. 2108/S. 1274, H.R. 3610, and H.R. 3624) propose that importing
establishments, and/or the foreign countries in which they are located, first receive formal
certification from U.S. authorities that their food safety systems demonstrably provide at
least the same level of safety assurances as the U.S. system. Under some of these bills,
certification could be denied or revoked if foreign safeguards are found to be insufficient,
unsafe imports are discovered, or foodborne illnesses are linked to such products. A
number of the bills also propose the collection of user fees from importers to cover the
costs of inspecting foreign products at the borders.
Some bills seek to require more physical inspections and testing by FDA at the
border or within other countries, to authorize more research into inspection and testing
technologies, or to restrict imports to specific ports. Among other measures with import
safety provisions are H.R. 3100, H.R. 3580 (P.L. 110-85), and S. 2077.
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, some argue.
Others counter that the agencies already have sufficient authorities to keep such
products from reaching consumers. FSIS’s 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.7 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 legislation to strengthen notification and recall authorities.
For example, H.R. 2108/S. 1274, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3580 (P.L. 110-85), H.R. 3610, H.R.
7 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 ...” For additional background see CRS Report
RL34167, The FDA’s Authority to Recall Products, by Vanessa K. Burrows.

---

CRS-5
3624, S. 2081, and H.R. 1148/S. 654 contain various provisions for mandatory recall
authority and/or notification requirements when adulterated foods are suspected to be in
commerce.
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 more 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. H.R. 3485 and S. 1292 are among the bills that would require agencies to
establish food traceability systems.
State-Inspected Meat and Poultry
Federal law currently prohibits meat and poultry plants that operate under one of the
27 state inspection programs from shipping their products across state lines. Many of the
states and small plants want to overturn that ban. 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. 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-inspected products into interstate commerce argue
that state programs are not required to have, and do not 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 but one of the state
programs to be at least equal to the U.S. program, was based largely on self-assessments.8
Title 11103 of H.R. 2419, the House-passed omnibus farm bill, would permit
interstate shipment of these products. It also could enable many federally inspected plants
to shift to state inspection. The debate over state inspection could intensify when the
Senate formally works on its version of a new farm bill. Other bills to permit interstate
shipment include H.R. 2315/S. 1150 and H.R. 1760/S. 1149.
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 were underlined
by reports, starting in September 2006, of foodborne illnesses linked to California spinach
and lettuce contaminated with the bacterium E. coli O157:H7. 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
8 See also FSIS Review of State Programs: Summary Report (January 2007) at [http://www.
fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Review_of_State_Programs.pdf].

---

CRS-6
contamination. The agency and other public officials have been encouraging the industry
to develop and follow voluntary guidelines for growing and packing safe products. Bills
intended to improve produce safety include H.R. 912 and S. 2077.
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 closely related 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 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. Pending companion bills H.R. 962/S. 549 seek
to curtail the nonmedical use of antibiotics in animal feeds.
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. In the 110th Congress, several bills
(H.R. 992/S. 414 and H.R. 1396/S. 536) have been introduced to more closely regulate
the labeling of products from cloned animals.
Selected Reading
CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer
CRS Report RL34132, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations
CRS Report RL34198, U.S. Food and Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and Selected
Issues
CRS Report RS22653, Animal Identification: Overview and Issues
CRS Report RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues

---