Food Safety Legislation Delayed

While some parts of Rep. DeLauro’s bill (HR 875) were incorporated into HR 2749, her most controversial element—stripping food oversight from the FDA and placing it in the hands of a new Food Safety Administration—was not (see “Food Fight,” June/July 2009, pp. 16-23). DeLauro’s bill had also gained notoriety because detractors warned it would outlaw organic farming, impose controls on back yard gardening, and stamp out local farmers markets throughout the country, although Rep. DeLauro insists none of these things would actually happen. While largely abated, many of these fears continue to swirl around HR 2749 on the Internet.

The Senate bill (S 510), drafted by Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), is similar to, but distinct from, HR 2749. The House version, for example, requires annual registration fees from domestic and foreign food producers and imposes new civil and criminal penalties for violators. The Senate bill does neither. Certain actions that are “required” of the FDA in the House version are merely “authorized” in the other, and vice versa.

“S 510 is not a companion bill to HR 2749,” Durbin spokesman Max Gleischman told Food Quality. “S 510 will be the basis for whatever bill will be considered in the Senate.” The HELP Committee held a hearing on S 510 on October 22. Any difference between the Senate bill and the House version must be reconciled before the bill can be signed into law.

While generally supportive of S 510, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD, told the Senate panel that the bill needed to be strengthened by providing funding through registration fees and by giving the agency “explicit authority” to obtain food records during routine facility inspections, as opposed to access only in case of emergencies, as is now the case. “This authority is essential to enable FDA to identify problems and require corrections before people become ill,” she told the Senate committee.

Most consumer groups and food industry organizations like the direction Congress is moving in. The GMA supports many of the provisions of S 510, said its communications director, Scott W. Openshaw. “Following the House’s recent passage of food safety reform legislation, we strongly urge the Senate to swiftly follow suit and pass its own food safety bill as quickly as possible,” he told Food Quality.

Reportable Food Registry

In September, the FDA unveiled its electronic food registry. Food facilities that manufacture, process, or hold food for consumption in the U.S. must report, within 24 hours, any “reasonable probability” of severe health problems to a person or an animal.

Mandated by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (PL 110-85), the reporting rule applies to all food and animal feed regulated by the FDA, except infant formula and dietary supplements, which have separate requirements. Examples of reportable causes include bacterial contamination, allergen mislabeling, or elevated levels of chemical components. Companies that either destroy the food or find and correct the problem before shipping it are not obligated to report.

“There’s been a lag time; we learn about problems after people get sick,” said Michael R. Taylor, a George Washington University food safety expert and senior advisor to the FDA commissioner. “Working with the food industry, we can swiftly remove contaminated products from commerce and keep them out of consumers’ hands,” Taylor told reporters in September. While many companies already voluntarily submit reports about possible contamination, the law “makes this a duty that all food facilities have,” he said.

Industry reaction to the new database has been generally favorable. “At Kraft Foods, we fully support efforts that will strengthen America’s food safety systems,” said spokesperson Susan Davison. “We believe that the launch of the food registry will help do that,” she told Food Quality.