Before the Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

October 10, 2001

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee this morning to discuss how we might best go about guaranteeing that the systems we have in place in the United States to ensure the safety of our food supply remain the envy of other nations throughout the world.

GMA member companies make and market the world’s best-known and most trusted brands. Our members represent 90% of the branded food and beverage products sold in the United States. Nothing is more fundamental or has a higher priority for us than food safety.

The United States has the safest, most abundant and varied food supply in the world. We have achieved this enviable position not by luck or accident, but through the commitment of the food and agricultural industries and generations of dedicated public servants at the federal and state and local levels who work for our food safety regulatory agencies. The achievement of this partnership is reflected in the high confidence that American consumers have in the safety of their food supply. According to the Gallup organization, 82 percent of consumers have confidence that the Federal government adequately ensures the safety of the food supply. GMA surveys conducted by Peter Hart Associates through the 1990’s show strong consumer support of the food safety regulatory system. That consumer confidence is not misplaced. We do in fact have a remarkable good record in assuring a safe food supply.

The system we have is not perfect, but should be enhanced. Before we embark on radical restructuring of the food safety regulatory system, we should be absolutely convinced that there is no better way to address the problems. In our view the system is not broken but it does need changes and more resources.

Our federal food safety system has evolved from its origins in the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act of that same year into a sophisticated, science-based system that appropriately allocates responsibility among several federal agencies, principally the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The allocation of responsibility among multiple agencies is not inherently wrong or misguided. Rather, it reflects the informed judgment of lawmakers and government officials over many decades that different sectors of the food supply present different challenges and thus call for different inspection and regulatory systems. For example, meat and poultry regulation has traditionally been inspection and inspector intensive recognizing that animal slaughter presents more safety challenges than other food processing. When fundamentally different regulatory systems are called for, dividing responsibility among different agencies represents a logical approach. In short, food safety regulation is not a “one size fits all” situation.

We should not underestimate the challenges that would be faced were we to attempt to combine the food safety regulatory activities into a single agency. Mr. Chairman, I know from the experience of many of my member companies how difficult and disruptive it can be to implement a merger. Even when a merger is ultimately successful-and not all of them are-combining organizations inherently means a period of uncertainty, distractions, loss of focus and functionality. Now, perhaps more than at any time in our history, we need intense focus on the job at hand.

Having said that, this does not mean we seek to maintain the status quo. There is room for improvement in our current system. We have four recommendations to improve the current system that I would like to share briefly with the committee:

First: Adequate staffing and resources Consumers, and the food industry, are best served by strong food safety agencies - including the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local health agencies - which develop policy based on sound science. Although these agencies already do a good job, they must be afforded the resources that the increasing challenges of a global marketplace demand.

I’d like to focus particularly on the FDA. Although the responsibilities of the FDA have increased dramatically over the last several decades, the funds appropriated to FDA for its food safety related functions have failed to keep pace. With a partnership among all interested parties, we can persuade those with responsibility for the Federal budget and those in the Congress with appropriations jurisdiction to provide FDA with the funding it needs to maintain the position it has historically enjoyed as the world’s most respected food safety regulatory body. I am pleased to say that GMA has already taken a leadership role in this area. For nearly a year now, GMA has co-led a food-industry wide coalition whose objective is to increase the awareness of the need for more resources at FDA and to provide creative ideas on how FDA might best make use of those additional resources. GMA has also created a Board-led task force of CEOs committed to helping ensure that the case for additional FDA resources is made. I think it is worthwhile mentioning that Congressional appropriators for the very first time are about to approve FDA’s full budget request.

Second: Research and science Our food safety system must emphasize scientific research. We must identify and fight the true causes of foodborne illness with the right scientific weapons. Those weapons can only be discovered through laboratory research and practical testing. Food safety research deserves high priority and funding. Good science has always been a critical component of sound food safety regulation. It is incumbent, therefore, on all of us with a shared commitment to effective food safety regulation to think creatively about ways in which we can ensure that FDA truly has access to the best and brightest scientific minds in our country. For example, we are exploring ways in which bright young scientists might begin their careers with a fellowship at the FDA in much the same way that many of our finest doctors begin their careers at the National Institutes of Health.

Third: Better coordination Collaboration, coordination, and consultation must be a full-time commitment of our federal and state regulators. We believe that examples of duplication or inconsistent regulation cited as reasons for a single food agency can be addressed by simpler and more sensible means. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services must assure that agency heads fully collaborate in carrying out their shared missions, and in identifying and eliminating duplications and inefficiencies. Key food safety agencies heads should be (1) asking why failures in communication occur among the federal agencies; (2) identifying the substantive areas in which the responsibilities of the agencies overlap; and (3) implementing specific measures to improve communication and eliminate duplication including, where necessary, the transfer and consolidation of responsibilities and associated personnel.

The previous Administration’s President’s Council on Food Safety studied this issue and concluded that “reorganization by itself will not significantly change the food safety system’s capability to assure public health protection and that no single structure for the food safety system provides the perfect solution”. In addition the Council concluded, “the current federal food safety system is providing a high level of public health protection but it can be strengthened.” A good example of progress in enhanced collaboration in the last Administration was the agreement by FDA and USDA to jointly coordinate in setting priorities for food safety research through the creation of the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research.

Fourth: Improved Import Inspection One of the most dramatic changes that has occurred with regard to our food supply is the extent to which we now have a global marketplace. FDA regulated products enter the United States from far more than one hundred countries. We must ensure that our regulatory agencies have the resources and tools to effectively regulate imported products. Inspection at our borders needs to be increased with training for these new inspectors along with adequate tracking technology for advance notice of products seeking entry into our country. In particular, we need to be able to identify products from countries that pose the greatest perceived risk, whether due to lack of strong safety systems or other potential threats, and take necessary steps to ensure the safety of those products. For many developing countries, access to the US market is an important part of their effort to improve the economy and well being of their citizenry. Effective regulation of imported products must include a component that involves a partnership with the exporting countries so that we address problems at the source and not simply at the border or dock.

In conclusion, GMA and its member companies are firmly committed to the continued integrity, and effectiveness of our food safety regulatory system. No one has a greater stake in the credibility of the system than our member companies. We are open to considering a wide range of ideas and proposals to improve our current system.

Before we scrap a system that is regarded as the best in the world; we should fully explore strategies to enhance the current system, through adequate funding, better coordination, the best science and continued innovation.

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to respond to questions that you and the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.