Order Code RL34080
Food and Agricultural Imports from China
Updated October 9, 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.
However, the United States exports much more in food and agricultural products to
China than vice versa. In calendar 2006, U.S. food, agricultural, and seafood exports
there totaled nearly 13.5 MMT, valued at more than $7.1 billion.
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.
Numerous bills have been introduced focusing on import food safety or containing
such provisions, which could apply to Chinese imports. They include H.R. 2997, S.
1776, H.R. 1148/S. 654, H.R. 2108/S. 1274, H.R. 3100, H.R. 3610, and H.R. 3624.
Also, Section 1009 in the Food Safety title (X) of the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 3580; P.L. 110-85), passed in September 2007,
requires 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
inspections performed, and aggregated data on inspection findings, including
violations and enforcement actions.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Trade Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
U.S. Import Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FDA Import Refusals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview and Limitations of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Types of Chinese Imports Refused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chinese Food Safety Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Recent Chinese Efforts to Address Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
U.S. Efforts to Improve Import Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Congressional Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Agricultural and Seafood Imports from China, CY2006 . . . . . 3
Table 2. Selected Agricultural and Seafood Exports to China, CY2006 . . . . . . . . 4
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 problem plants. At the same time, it has also have blocked the importation of
some types of U.S. food products, ostensibly due to food safety concerns.
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. Committees also are reviewing the U.S. laws and regulations designed
to ensure import safety. Bills also have been introduced aimed at clarifying and
expanding federal authorities and/or reorganizing agency responsibilities.
Within the Administration, FDA officials claim that they are examining how
best to determine relative risks among food products (imported and domestically
produced) and among exporting countries, and state that they will unveil a new food
protection strategy in mid-November 2007. That is also when the President’s
working group is scheduled to announce an action plan for enhancing the safety of
1 For an overview of food import safety see CRS Report RL34198, U.S. Food and
Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and Selected Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker. See also 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
all consumer products. Underlying the FDA effort is the question of whether the
agency has sufficient money and staff to address these risks.
Trade 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
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.4
Table 1, 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.
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%.
4 A table providing data on the leading suppliers can be found in U.S. Food and Agricultural
Imports: Safeguards and Selected Issues.
CRS-3
Table 1. 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.)
The broader categories in Table 1 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
CRS-4
United States in 2004. Aquaculture has facilitated this export growth, particularly of
shrimp and tilapia. Catfish, eel, and crab imports also have risen significantly.5
The United States exports much more in food and agricultural products to China
than vice versa. In calendar 2006, U.S. food, agricultural, and seafood exports there
totaled nearly 13.5 MMT valued at more than $7.1 billion.6 Table 2, below, shows
some of the major types of these U.S. exports. Many of these exports (e.g., much of
the seafood) may be sent to China as lower-value products, processed there, and
returned to be consumed in the United States.
Table 2. Selected Agricultural and Seafood Exports to China,
CY2006
Import
Value ($1,000)
(metric tons unless specified)
Soybeans, incl. oil & meal
$2,576,669
10,397,906
Cotton
2,066,597
1,649,975
Hides and skins (number)
790,264
1,244,417
Poultry meat
312,590
409,698
Seafood, misc.
291,159
181,382
Intermediate products, misc.
189,362
85,529
Dairy products
116,277
105,854
Salmon
108,417
37,418
Consumer oriented, misc.
95,505
14,399
Fruits & vegetables, processed
86,063
95,722
Red meats
82,532
63,109
Fresh fruit
69,252
69,295
Tobacco
61,480
9,622
Tree nuts
50,242
12,709
Planting seeds
32,113
16,664
Other bulk commodities
28,092
9,705
Feeds and fodders
25,994
39,995
Crab
24,800
2,915
Wheat
22,546
144,539
Snack foods
22,530
11,247
Sugar, sweetener, bases
15,637
7,344
Source: USDA, FAS, BICO data. Not all products listed.
5 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].
6 FAS, U.S. Trade Internet System, BICO data.
CRS-5
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.”7
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.8
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.9 A foreign plant cannot 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.10 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.
7 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, by Geoffrey S. Becker, and the WTO website at [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop
_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm].
8 See CRS Report RL34198, U.S. Food and Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and Selected
Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker, for more detail.
9 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.
10 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].
CRS-6
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.11 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.12
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 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.13 The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) had a
11 21 U.S.C. § 381(a); see also [http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/rpm_new2/ch9auto.
html].
12 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.
13 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].
CRS-7
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.14
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.15 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.16
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 refusals).17 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, when CRS last tabulated it, and the months
were not aggregated into annual figures.18
For each line (recorded 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
14 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).
15 “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).
16 GAO Report RCED-98-103, Food Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of
Imported Foods Are Inconsistent and Unreliable. April 1998.
17 FDA website, accessed May 31, 2007, at [http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.
html].
18 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.
CRS-8
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.19 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 1,100.20
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.21
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. 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 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.22
Types of Chinese Imports Refused
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
19 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.
20 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.
21 Nonetheless, India’s exports to the United States were valued at a significant $1.4 billion
in calendar 2006.
22 FDA e-mail communication to CRS, June 6, 2007.
CRS-9
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 companies need
to look beyond their emphasis on low prices and communicate more clearly what their
standards are.24 In September 2007, a Chinese official asserted that problems with
Chinese exports have been due either to improper information on U.S. standards from
U.S. importers, or to the failure of the United States to check on whether Chinese
exporters had been approved by that government.25
FDA officials have told CRS 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).26
William Hubbard, a former FDA deputy commissioner, recently told National
Public Radio (NPR) that total “individual shipments of food and ingredient exports
23 Li Yuanping, director general of the Chinese Import and Export Food Safety Bureau, as
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 See for example: “Senior Chinese Official Hopes Chinese Actions Will Delay
Legislation,” FDA Week, September 14, 2007.
26 FDA e-mail communication to CRS, June 6, 2007.
CRS-10
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.”27
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.
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.”28
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.29
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:
27 “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].
28 Sharon Snider, “From Psyllium Seeds to Stoneware: FDA Insures the Quality of Imports,”
FDA Consumer Magazine, March 1991.
29 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-11
! 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
! for many commodities and industries, outdated or nonexistent
standards, or standards that are inconsistent with internationally
accepted ones.30
Responsibility for domestic food safety is shared among a number of Chinese
agencies at the national, provincial, and local levels, including the national Ministry of
Agriculture, which supervises the quality of primary agricultural products; and the
Ministry of Health and the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), both with
responsibilities in regulating processed foods. Quality assurance for both imports and
exports is under the purview of the General Administration for Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), which also has oversight over all exports
(including food and toys). However, the Ministry of Health and the SFDA have
“minimal” roles in regulating exports.31
At a recent hearing, an FDA official observed that China has some 400,000 food
or feed manufacturers. From 12,000 to 15,000 are registered with AQSIQ and are
therefore eligible to export products, yet an estimated one-third of China’s food exports
30 Calvin. Also, Fengxia Dong and Helen H. Jensen, “Challenges for China’s Agricultural
Exports: Compliance with Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,” Choices, 1st quarter 2007.
31 House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
staff trip report, “Food from China: Can We Import Safely?” Released October 5, 2007.
The trip report observed, among other things, that the Chinese food supply chain apparently
does not meet international safety standards, that the Chinese government “appears
determined to avoid embarrassing food safety outbreaks in export markets,” and that a much
more vigorous inspection and testing program is needed than FDA has been able or willing
to do so far.
CRS-12
come from non-registered establishments.32 According to another expert, China
officially has 448,000 food enterprises, 78% of them “cottage industries” with 10
employees or fewer.33
Recent Chinese Efforts to Address Food Safety
To overcome such obstacles, the Chinese government earlier 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 have said they 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 says it samples and
tests products for export to help ensure they meet foreign buyers’ standards.34
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.35 HACCP is a system of
assessing risks, determining the points at which they might occur during production,
and instituting measures to prevent them.36
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, 2007.37
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
32 David Acheson, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection, in response to
questions at a September 26, 2007 hearing before the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Health.
33 Source: Drew Thompson, Director of China Studies and Starr Senior Fellow, The Nixon
Center, “U.S.-China Food Safety and Trade,” September 9, 2007 presentation at a Woodrow
Wilson Center conference, Regulating Food Safety in China.
34 Calvin.
35 Dong.
36 FDA information on HACCP is at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/haccp.html].
37 “China Executes Former Head of Food Safety Agency,” Wall Street Journal, July 10,
2007.
CRS-13
reportedly claimed to have closed 152,000 unlicensed food manufacturers and retailers
in 2006 for making counterfeit or low-quality products.
According to more recent U.S. agricultural attache reports, China’s AQSIQ
announced that it would begin affixing inspection and quarantine labels to all food
product packages for export after inspection, effective September 1, 2007.38 Other
recent announcements have included a Chinese State Council regulation intended to
intensify controls over food product producers and distributors, where more records
would be made public, new higher fines would be levied on food exporters who violate
regulations, and a “blacklist” would be established for both exporters and domestic
importers who distribute unqualified food products. The regulation reportedly notes
that local governments are mainly responsible for food safety oversight.39
Other reported actions include the designation of the equivalent of $1.6 billion to
improve food and drug supervision by the SFDA, and forthcoming rules to tighten
oversight of food and drug processors including their acquisition of raw materials.40
Meanwhile, another agency, the Standardization Administration of China, announced
at a July press conference that it planned to revise by 2010 as many as 4,000 food
safety standards, notably for food additives, dairy, meat, eggs, and fisheries. Whether
these commitments applied to other Chinese bodies such as AQSIQ was uncertain.41
The same AQSIQ regulation (see above) also will impose new requirements on
importers. U.S. exporters already have encountered new sanitary barriers to trade
imposed in July 2007 by Chinese officials. At that time, they announced that meat and
poultry imports shipped by some U.S. companies were being suspended. These
included chicken products that, they asserted, 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).42 Shortly after that, poultry exports from seven U.S. states were banned
from China due to the presence of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI), a move
that the United States asserted was not based on sound science.43 In early October 2007
38 For details of the change see USDA, FAS, China to attach inspection and quarantine
labels for food exports, Gain report CH7059, July 23, 2007, accessed on the Internet at
[http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200707/146291796.pdf].
39 This announcement and other recent China food safety news is covered in: USDA, FAS,
Agricultural Situation News Flash I.28, GAIN report CH7065, August 10, 2008, accessed
on the Internet at [http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200708/146292018.pdf].
40 Ibid.
41 USDA, FAS, Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and Standards, Country Report
— Mandatory Update, GAIN report CH7066, August 16, 2007, accessed on the Internet at
[http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200708/146292078.pdf]. This report is intended to
catalogue the key standards affecting imports for the Chinese market, according to FAS.
42 Various news reports, including Food Chemical News, July 2, 2007; The Wall Street
Journal, July 16, 200; and Reuters, July 15, 2007.
43 USDA, FAS, Poultry and Products Annual Report, GAIN report CH7077, September 26,
2007, accessed at [http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200709/146292545.pdf].
CRS-14
China reportedly rejected 47 tons of U.S. frozen sardines that were said to be
contaminated with Listeria.
Some U.S. interests have asserted that these recent actions have been in retaliation
for U.S. complaints about the safety of Chinese goods. Others maintain that the
Chinese are seeking to demonstrate that they are protecting their own consumers from
unsafe products, including imported goods. For example, they also have blocked
poultry imports from Brazil based on sanitary concerns.
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. In September 2007, FDA authorities told several congressional
panels that a new food safety strategy is expected to be unveiled in November 2007,
around the time when the President’s working group on import safety is to release its
own recommendations.44
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.45 Food safety was one of the issues
reportedly discussed by President Bush and Chinese Hu Jintao at a side meeting at the
September 2007 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) ministerial in Sydney,
Australia.
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-
44 The Interagency Working Group on Import Safety on September 10, 2007 released a
preliminary report entitled Protecting American Consumers Every Step of the Way: A
strategic framework for continual improvement in import safety. The report recommends
working with the importing community to consider risks and their mitigation “over the life
cycle” of an imported product, i.e., focusing on prevention rather than relying primarily on
border interdiction to prevent unsafe products from entering the United States.
45 “FDA in talks with China over food safety MOU, says Acheson,” Food Chemical News,
July 16, 2007. Meetings with Chinese officials have continued since then, FDA reportedly
has told congressional committees.
CRS-15
related. Roughly a third of these address aspects of shellfish or other seafood safety.46
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
had requested a meeting soon, possibly in the fall, specifically on food safety. It asked
the Chinese to respond to a series of specific requests such as:
! 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;
! 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.47
In one significant move, 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.48 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 detains 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.
46 Both websites accessed May 15, 2007, at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/intl-toc.html].
47 “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].
48 FDA Import Alert #16-13, which may be viewed at [http://www.fda.gov/ora//fiars/
ora_import_ia16131.html]
CRS-16
The import alert reiterated 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 on the
topic from FDA and FSIS officials. Several other panels have held a series of hearings
on China import concerns and/or the broader topic of U.S. food safety efforts,
including the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, which was scheduled to hold its third on October 11, 2007; and its
Subcommittee on Health, which heard testimony on an import safety bill (H.R. 3610)
on September 26, 2007. The agriculture subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, as well as the Senate Commerce Committee, also have held relevant
hearings. Additional hearings on the China situation and on food safety generally are
anticipated in both chambers during the 110th Congress.
Numerous bills have been introduced (and one passed) focusing on food safety or
containing food safety provisions, which could apply to Chinese imports. For example,
Section 1009 in the Food Safety title (X) of the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 3580; P.L. 110-85), passed in September 2007,
requires 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
inspections performed, and aggregated data on inspection findings, including violations
and enforcement actions. Nearly a dozen other food safety bills pending as of October
2007 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. H.R. 3100 is another measure with
import safety provisions. (These bills are described in more detail in CRS Report
CRS-17
RL34198, U.S. Food and Agricultural Imports: Safeguards and Selected Issues, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.)
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. The House-
passed omnibus farm bill (H.R. 2419) would maintain this date but modify some
labeling and record-keeping requirements. H.R. 357 and S. 404 would mandate COOL
by September 30, 2007. (For further information on COOL, see CRS Report 97-508,
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods, by Geoffrey S. Becker).