Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Effect Measure

Effect Measure is a forum for progressive public health discussion and argument as well as a source of public health information from around the web that interests the Editor(s)

Search

Profile

The Editors of Effect Measure are senior public health scientists and practitioners. Paul Revere was a member of the first local Board of Health in the United States (Boston, 1799). The Editors sign their posts "Revere" to recognize the public service of a professional forerunner better known for other things.

Nation-approved.sml.jpg

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Public Health/Medical Links

Bird Flu Links

Other Links

Iraq

Group Efforts

Other Information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Old Effect Measure site

Technorati Profile

« FDA will probably declare experimental bird flu vaccine safe. Too bad it might not work. | Main | Are colleges and universities making the grade in flu planning? »

New food safety policy, part II

Category: Food safety
Posted on: February 27, 2007 4:55 PM, by revere

A follow up (of sorts) to yesterday's post on the "new" strategy for preventing foodborne illness at the US Department of Agriculture. This one's about the new policy at the Food and Drug Administration:

The federal agency that's been front and center in warning the public about tainted spinach and contaminated peanut butter is conducting just half the food safety inspections it did three years ago.

The cuts by the Food and Drug Administration come despite a barrage of high-profile food recalls.

"We have a food safety crisis on the horizon," said Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.

Between 2003 and 2006, FDA food safety inspections dropped 47 percent, according to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press.

That's not all that's dropping at the FDA in terms of food safety. The analysis also shows:

_There are 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices who concentrate on food issues.

_Safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75 percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year, according to the agency's own statistics. (Andrew Bridges and Seth Borenstein, AP)

Responding to fears of a bioterrorist attack on the nation's food supply, the FDA budget was increased after 9/11 and inspections increased. That was then. This is now:

"The only difference is now it's worse, because there are more inspections to do -- more facilities -- and more food coming into America, which requires more inspections," said Tommy Thompson, who as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services pushed to increase the numbers. He's now part of a coalition lobbying to turn around several years of stagnant spending.

The Bush administration's budget request for 2008 includes an additional $10.6 million for food safety at the FDA; the lobbying group said 10 times that increase is needed. Even though the FDA increased its overall spending on food between 2003 and 2006, those increases failed to keep pace with rising personnel costs.

"It's not just outsiders like us who have been watching it for a while. People who worked in the Bush administration are coming out and saying the agency is not working at its current resource levels. It just can't manage the job," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group.

[snip]

The shrunken ranks of inspectors have left the nation once again vulnerable, especially to problems in imported food, Thompson and others said. Doyle, whose center studies ways to improve food safety, called the nation's growing appetite for imported foods the "coming threat."

The United States last year imported about $10 billion more in food, feed and beverages than it exported, according to Census figures. Even as imports grow in volume and diversity, the number of FDA inspections is shrinking: agency inspectors physically examined just 1.3 percent of food imports last year, about three-quarters as much as in 2003.

Like the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which gets about 24% of the budget but is responsible for 80% of the food supply, responds it is now being smarter with its shrinking budget by "targeting" inspections based on risk. That's just what USDA says its doing.

I think.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/34321

Comments

1

What this all means is "we will protect food safety by burying our heads in the sand". 'Risk based analysis' means we won't really look at anything but if you meet certain criteria on our inspector's check list you're declared 'low risk' and don't get inspected nor do you have to make investments to conform to food safety regulations. (Luckily, of course there is no corruption in the food inspection business.) Note that on this logic they just shut down the lab testing for BSE since the 'risk is so low'. How do we know this? Well, since so little beef is tested there is a low risk of any being found. This whole thing is just noise-making while ensuring that the feathers of the Big Food companies are not ruffled and they can continue shovelling out industrialized garbage and call it 'the cheapest, safest food on the planet'. Disgusting. Buy local folks.

Posted by: Ron | February 27, 2007 6:53 PM

2

revere,

what's frustrating is that virtually everything at FDA that in any way, shape, or form smacks of regulation is being cut. I've heard that the NARMS program has been seriously slashed. Stupid, since it's one of the best antibiotic resistance monitoring programs out there.

Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | February 27, 2007 8:51 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.