Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget for food safety within the Department of Agriculture (USDA). I am Dr. Elsa Murano, Under Secretary for Food Safety. With me today are Dr. Merle D. Pierson, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety; Dr. Garry McKee, Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS); and Ms. Linda Swacina, Associate Administrator.
The safety of our food supply is one of the most important issues we face not only at USDA, but as a nation: there is nothing more personal or vital to all of us than the food we provide to our families. President Bush’s budget for FY 2004 includes record-level support for USDA’s food safety programs and their basic mission of providing continuous food safety inspection in each meat, poultry, and egg products establishment in the country. The additional $42 million requested for FSIS will be used to fund several important initiatives that I would like to review with you in a moment.
Before I cover those initiatives that will be implemented from the additional $42 million requested for FSIS, I want to discuss what has happened in the past year, our progress on the five goals to improve food safety, our efforts to improve international food safety, and our plans for the future. What Has Happened During the Past Year We have the best food production and processing systems in the world, providing consumers with the most abundant and safest food supply. However, last year was a testament that maintaining the safety of our food is an ongoing challenge. We faced two major recalls, one caused by Listeria monocytogenes, another caused by E. coli O157:H7.
We take our public health mission very seriously, and we will do what is necessary to accomplish that mission. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over the past decade, there has been a major Listeriosis outbreak associated with ready-to-eat products in the United States every two to four years. In addition, E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks due to consumption of undercooked hamburgers are almost an annual occurrence.
Despite these challenges, we have made significant improvements to our food safety program. We believe that the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) rule in 1996 has made food safer. In May 2002, the CDC reported that the rate of foodborne illnesses, across the board, is down 21 percent.
We have also made great strides in improving the technical and scientific knowledge of our inspection force. With the introduction of the Consumer Safety Officer corps we have introduced highly-skilled, scientific experts into the field to reinforce our veterinarians and front-line inspectors. We are driven by the fact that the enormity of our responsibility cries out for a science-based system and we continue to incorporate state-of-the-art science into the inspection process at every opportunity.
Those strides are great, but we need to address how we are going to protect public health further. Throughout my career as a researcher, I have become keenly aware of the importance of sound scientific studies and how these can help provide us with the critical information and practical application of science we need to make decisions that will truly reduce the risk of foodborne illness. I have also observed the need for a proactive approach, one that does not simply react to food safety crises, but rather anticipates risks and prepares to mitigate their potential for harm. We need to improve across the board in everything we do including our public education campaigns; laboratory testing; inspector training; and in-plant inspection.
The Five Goals To Improve Food Safety I want to review some of the achievements we have made in improving food safety. Last year when I testified before this Committee, I outlined to you five goals that I intended to pursue in the coming year to ensure that we are proactive in protecting public health. We have pursued these goals with vigor, and we continue to do so. I am proud to report that much has been accomplished over the last year in our pursuit of these goals to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.
Before I cover our accomplishments under each of the five goals, I would like to review them quickly. They are:
1) Ensure that policy decisions are based on science; 2) Improve the management and effectiveness of FSIS programs; 3) Improve coordination of food safety activities with other public health agencies; 4) Protect meat, poultry, and egg products against intentional harm; and 5) Enhance public education efforts.
Goal #1: Ensure that Policy Decisions are Based on Science My first goal is to ensure that policy decisions are based on science. As I mentioned earlier, employing science is the only way we are going to break the cycle of foodborne illness. My background as a researcher in food safety has shown me the importance of utilizing science in formulating regulatory policy.
If we take a look at two of the pathogens that have recently been on our radar screen – E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes – then we see that these organisms are representative of the universe of microbial hazards that pose the biggest threat to the safety of our food supply.
The first one, E. coli O157:H7, comes to us through live animals that may have the organism on their bodies or in their intestinal tracts. Thus, its control hinges on minimizing its presence in the intestinal tract of food animals and in preventing its contents from reaching raw products derived from these animals.
The second pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes, is an environmental pathogen carried by personnel, equipment and water, which can spread the pathogen when they contact food. Thus, its control hinges on finding where it might be harbored in the environment of the food processing plant and eliminating it so as to prevent contamination of food-contact surfaces.
Risk assessments help give us a picture of the pervasiveness of these organisms. Risk assessments are scientifically-based processes of estimating the likelihood of exposure to a hazard and the resulting public health impact. They provide a solid foundation from which we base policies on science.
The benefits of using them can be seen in our initiatives on E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes last year. We learned from our risk assessment on E. coli O157:H7 that the pathogen was not the proverbial needle in a haystack we once believed. On the contrary, it was much more prevalent than previously thought, which meant that we had to take a hard, new look at our strategies to address its occurrence. Not all establishments were implementing HACCP systems that were effective for controlling E. coli O157:H7. Others were not correctly validating the interventions used to control the pathogen. We realized that simply focusing on grinding operations was not effective; therefore, in order to be efficient, we also needed to focus on the production process, the slaughter process, and trimmings as contributors to the problem.
In November, we issued a directive to our inspectors to make sure that establishments producing ready-to-eat meat and poultry products are preventing Listeria monocytogenes contamination. This directive was absolutely necessary given the gravity of the Northeastern Listeriosis outbreak in the fall. Furthermore, we recently completed a draft risk assessment on Listeria, which evaluates the factors that may contribute to the overall risk to public health. The information developed during the risk assessment process is critical to exploring a variety of risk management scenarios and we plan to examine different combinations of testing and intervention that present possibilities for future policy making. We used the risk assessment as we worked on a final rule to reduce Listeria in processing plants producing ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. We have moved as rapidly as we can to develop this final rule while using sound science as the basis and expect to publish it in the Federal Register soon. In a perfect world, risk assessments would be completed before risk management strategies are developed. But in the real world, we may not have this luxury. We must design risk management strategies based on what we know today and improve them as more information becomes available.
Another way we have based policy decisions on science has been through a series of scientific symposia we hosted on specific issues ranging from applied epidemiology, pathogen reduction, and Listeria. These symposia offer an opportunity to hear from experts in academia and government and allow for a dialogue on how we can improve the scientific basis for our food safety programs and policies.
Most recently, on April 29, FSIS sponsored the Second Scientific Symposium on Applied Epidemiology. This meeting was the second in a series of meetings aimed at aiding FSIS in developing a framework for how the agency will conduct public health investigations and integrate the scientific principles of applied epidemiology into its food safety activities. The successful meeting served as an open forum to discuss the agency’s approach to investigations of foodborne illnesses associated with meat, poultry, and egg products and the progress the agency has made using epidemiology as a basis for regulatory decision making.
Goal #2: Improve the Management and Effectiveness of FSIS Programs The second goal I’d like to discuss is improving the management and effectiveness of FSIS programs. In order to fulfill this goal, we needed to select a leader to head FSIS through one of its most profound transformations toward a public health mission.
I was looking for certain traits in this individual. These included a scientific background, strong management skills, a sense of accountability to everybody in the organization, and most important, a proven track record of public health service and commitment. This person would also have to be a motivator.
I am truly proud to say that I have found all these traits in the selection of Dr. Garry McKee, who started with FSIS on September 1, 2002. In this very short time he has made a very positive impression on agency employees and constituents alike. Dr. McKee is a committed public health professional with over 30 years of public health experience and a proven leader in managing public health programs and personnel. He brings unparalleled enthusiasm, determination, and commitment toward public health to the helm of FSIS and I certainly believe that his tenure will be regarded in the future as a significant turning point in FSIS’ long history.
The selection of an Administrator was critical, but so too was the reorganization of the agency that began last year. This reorganization will prepare the agency to better meet its public health and food safety goals. The purpose for this reorganization is to increase accountability, enhance communication, and improve overall efficiency.
This reorganization will also ensure that the principles of public health and food safety cut across the entire spectrum of FSIS’ work. We have added four assistant administrators for Food Security; Program Evaluation, Enforcement, and Review; Communications, Outreach and External Review; and International Coordination to strengthen the working relationship between our various offices.
With Dr. McKee’s leadership, we are already seeing increased accountability for all FSIS employees; improved communication and cooperation that flows smoothly and quickly throughout the organization, as well as laterally across all divisions and to outside agencies; and increased efficiency in the agency’s programs. As a public health agency, lives depend on our programs and operations to work as a well-oiled machine.
Another key to enhancing the consistency and effectiveness of FSIS inspection entails a revitalization of training and education programs conducted by the agency to instruct our workforce on HACCP sanitation procedures and other regulatory measures. The agency is in the process of redesigning current training programs to enhance distance learning opportunities and improve hands-on training methods. We realize that our workforce is the backbone of FSIS. We rely on our field employees to be in every meat, poultry, and egg products plant, ensuring that the plants are producing products that are safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled. Our frontline employees are responsible for making the critical determination that products are not adulterated and are safe to eat. They are also responsible for identifying and preventing intentional threats to the food supply. As a result, we believe that it is absolutely necessary to have a scientifically- and technically-trained workforce that is dedicated to ensuring a safe supply of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS is refocusing and retooling its training efforts because a well-trained and competent workforce is a key element to the success of our critical food safety and public health mission.
We have also strengthened our workforce’s ability to enforce the HMSA. All of the over 7,600 FSIS inspection personnel are expected to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and take enforcement action for humane handling and slaughter violations. FSIS has inspection personnel trained in humane methods of handling and slaughter in all of the nearly 900 federally inspected U.S. livestock slaughter establishments. In addition to their food safety-related inspection responsibilities, these veterinarians and inspectors are charged with observing the methods by which livestock are slaughtered. FSIS inspectors and veterinarians, who provide continuous inspection in every slaughter facility, are required to take immediate enforcement action when a violation is observed. FSIS personnel who fail to enforce the HMSA are considered negligent in their duties and are subject to disciplinary action. FSIS has taken, and will continue to take, enforcement actions against plants that do not follow humane handling requirements.
In addition, FSIS used funding allocated in the FY 2001 Supplemental bill to hire 17 veterinarians to serve as District Veterinary Medical Specialists (DVMS) in each of the agency’s districts. The DVMS reported for duty on December 30, 2001. The DVMS have been trained in all aspects related to humane handling and slaughter, including antemortem inspection, humane handling regulations, the HMSA, stunning methodologies, assessing consciousness, enforcement procedures related to humane handling, and workplace violence. They also serve as the program coordinators for all humane handling issues within their districts and are providing training to newly hired in-plant Veterinary Medical Officers on the agency’s humane handling and slaughter responsibilities. In addition to our reorganization and training efforts, FSIS is continuing the pilot inspection system, known as the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project, or HIMP, to address the online slaughter process. I view HIMP as a means of increasing the effectiveness of our inspection force and the efficiency of our food safety systems, while in no way compromising food safety or our process control system.
Under HIMP, one FSIS inspector inspects each carcass at the end of the line, while other FSIS inspectors are given the freedom to move throughout the facility and the slaughter line to ensure that the plant’s critical control points in its food safety system are effectively preventing and stopping pathogens and other food safety hazards, resulting in more intense and effective inspection and verification activities. In June 2002, FSIS made data from the National Alliance for Food Safety (NAFS) available comparing HIMP and traditional inspection, which indicate that HIMP is at least equal to the traditional inspection system. In September 2002, an independent review of the HIMP data concluded that “the HIMP system compared favorably to the traditional system of inspection.” FSIS is encouraged by this data and we intend to use these results to further modernize our inspection system to most effectively prevent and control food safety hazards.
Goal #3: Improve Coordination of Food Safety Activities with Other Public Health Agencies We have also made progress with the third goal to improve coordination of food safety activities with other public health agencies. I am a strong believer that by working together, all the agencies with public health responsibilities can best utilize our resources to ensure a safe food supply.
An example of our progress in this area was an unprecedented investigation that we coordinated with the CDC and other State and local public health agencies on the Northeastern listeriosis outbreak last year. FSIS dispatched seven teams beginning in early September to affected Northeastern States and used information provided by CDC to test products and visit plants that were suspected of being linked to the outbreak. More than 400 tests were taken in the course of the investigation. When we first suspected that a turkey product caused the outbreak, we took the necessary steps to identify the plant. When the plant was identified, FSIS immediately conducted a recall and sent a team of specialists to the establishment to identify and help correct any problems in the plant. We spent an enormous amount of time and resources investigating this outbreak including creating a team of more than 50 laboratory scientists, regional epidemiologists, consumer safety officers, compliance officers, field personnel and headquarters management to work closely with CDC and State and local public health officials to locate the source.
This effort was enhanced by our cadre of FSIS epidemiologists, many of which are Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Officers. We believe so strongly in the significant role the PHS can play in helping FSIS carry out its food safety mission that on April 17, 2003, we signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ PHS Commissioned Corps, to expand the role and number of PHS Officers detailed to FSIS. The addition of these PHS Commissioned Officers will enhance FSIS’ capabilities for rapid response during heightened security alerts or an actual threat to food security.
Another example is our very close working relationship with the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, Dr. Mark McClellan. We have established regular meetings with Dr. McClellan’s office to increase our interaction on issues of mutual concern and to discuss policy positions of common interest.
States are also an integral part of the U.S. food safety system. We are working to update and strengthen the Federal State review process through a number of means. FSIS is working diligently to address the congressional mandate in the 2002 Farm Bill requiring us to carry out a comprehensive review of State Meat and Poultry Inspection programs. The agency has also published voluntary security guidelines to help State-inspected plants that produce meat, poultry, and egg products in identifying ways to strengthen their security plans to protect against acts of bioterrorism. Another area in which we are making major strides is our cooperation with States through the sharing of recall information. In July 2002, FSIS published a final rule allowing the agency to share a firm’s distribution list with State and Federal agencies in the event of a meat or poultry recall through a Memorandum of Understanding. This change allows for better communication and coordination between FSIS and the numerous State and Federal agencies that are involved in product recalls.
Goal #4: Protect Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products Against Intentional Harm Close coordination with other public health agencies is also very important in protecting the food supply against intentional harm, which leads me to the fourth goal. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, FSIS has strengthened coordination and preparation efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to food-related emergencies resulting from acts of terrorism, and ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products that come to us from other countries. With a strong food safety infrastructure already in place, FSIS has been able to focus on strengthening existing programs and improving lines of communication, both internally and externally.
We have implemented several measures to protect the public from contaminated product entering the United States from abroad. In addition to reinspecting imported product, FSIS continually assesses foreign establishments to make sure their sanitation and inspection procedures are equivalent to those in the United States.
To augment the efforts of traditional FSIS import inspectors, FSIS has also added 20 new import surveillance liaison inspectors who are on duty at ports-of-entry. Where traditional USDA import inspectors examine each shipment and conduct reinspection activities, these new import surveillance liaison inspectors conduct a broader range of surveillance activities at each import facility and serve as liaisons to improve coordination with other agencies concerned with the safety of imported food products, such as the Department of Homeland Security.
Furthermore, FSIS introduced the new Automated Import Information System (AIIS), which focuses on a foreign country’s inspection system as a whole, rather than on individual plants. This system, using statistics, chooses imports for reinspection based on the annual volume of shipments from the exporting country. Previously, for all countries except Canada, reinspection was randomly assigned based on an establishment’s compliance history. The new system is user-friendly and allows inspectors at all ports-of-entry to share data. It also allows managers to have easier access to inspection reports. The new AIIS also provides better tracking of shipments once they enter the United States, and FSIS’ next step is to integrate the system with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Customs systems to further strengthen the food safety system against intentional attacks.
Besides our initiatives to screen imported products, we have conducted a vulnerability assessment to be used as a tool for determining the most vulnerable products, likely agents, and potential sites for deliberate adulteration of domestically produced meat, poultry, and egg products. The assessment was conducted using a farm-to-table approach based on current knowledge of the industrial processes used in the production of these products and the potential biological and chemical agents that could be introduced. The assessment was concluded in June 2002 and the information obtained is being used to develop risk management strategies, including ensuring that our laboratories are equipped with the methods and personnel necessary for detecting agents of concern.
We are also developing a vulnerability assessment of the import system to identify points in the production of imported products where biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants could be intentionally added to foods being brought into the United States. FSIS used the risk analysis framework to conduct a relative risk ranking to be used to allocate resources to monitor U.S. ports-of-entry for those food commodities that pose the greatest risk, examine different intervention strategies for preventing or reducing risks, develop biohazard identification protocols, and target training of personnel and develop educational campaigns to increase awareness. This assessment is expected to be completed in September 2003.
We have taken preparation for food safety emergencies to a higher level with simulation exercises. Earlier this year, we conducted an exercise known as “Crimson Winter” to familiarize our managers and staff with the operating environment that would exist during an outbreak of foodborne disease – the cause being intentional or unintentional. This exercise was very constructive for our senior management, emergency response team, our partners in the Food Threat Preparedness Network, and other relevant Federal and State agencies.
Goal #5: Enhance Public Education Efforts Finally, goal number five is to engage in proactive education programs. Food safety education is a critical element of the risk analysis framework, which includes risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. It is a risk management strategy because educating food preparers is an important way to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. Education is also a risk communication function because it serves to alert the public about a hazard that exists and can be addressed by safe food handling and food selection.
As we continue to examine emerging and existing food safety problems, it is important that we remember that reducing foodborne illness requires numerous interventions all along the farm-to-table chain. We must consider all the strategies available to us – and education is one of them – to make the food supply safer. That is why we continually look for the most cost-effective ways to get the food safety message out to all food handlers from coast to coast.
I have been busy travelling around the Nation conducting media interviews and delivering food safety education messages through an aggressive campaign. This is why we have pursued an even greater amount of coordination among government, industry, and consumer groups to deliver food safety messages to all food handlers and preparers.
One of FSIS’ key public health missions is to educate the public about the hazards of foodborne illness, as well as to teach safe food handling techniques to ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products. Since we are trying to share our food safety message with all segments of the population, such as consumers, food preparers, educators, children, physicians, public health officials, and industry, this is a formidable task.
Because we are tasked with spreading our food safety message to so many people with a limited amount of resources, FSIS is developing a comprehensive and sustainable mass media campaign that leverages traditional and non-traditional media outlets throughout the country to get this important message out. To carry out this function, FSIS has requested $1.5 million in the FY 2004 budget for the development of this food safety education campaign. Some of the funds will be used to consult expert assistance on the design of a mass media food safety campaign. The agency intends to combine the expertise of the consultant with that of its traditional food safety education partners, as well as others with expertise in the delivery of public health and food safety messages.
The development of this food safety campaign is the next step in the agency’s efforts to continuously enhance the delivery of important and life-saving food safety messages to the public. Currently, FSIS Food Safety Education staff is working with traditional media sources, food handlers and preparers, as well as other “food safety education audiences” to refine food safety messages and lay the groundwork for future development of a wider mass media education campaign.
To this end, the agency is sending the USDA Food Safety Mobile to strategic locations throughout the country to research and develop this important food safety education campaign. While delivering important food safety messages to the public, the Mobile is providing valuable first hand insight on how future mass media messages and education campaigns should be constructed and delivered. FSIS will combine this research with the expert consultation it will seek in FY 2004 from food safety education professionals and develop a much broader and sustainable mass media campaign.
Also last year, FSIS partnered with the Food and Nutrition Service to provide new educational materials to schools and child care facilities. We are also actively engaged in the Partnership for Food Safety Education, which is a public-private coalition dedicated to educating the public about safe food handling preparation to help reduce foodborne illness.
We all have to realize as well that education is not just about the basics of food handling. There are many new effective products and technologies in the marketplace that can be used to reduce pathogens and food preparers need to be educated about them. Basic and thorough education is needed to inform and change possible misconceptions about their applications.
Irradiation is a good example of a technology that is misunderstood by the public. We were charged by Congress in the recent Farm Bill to conduct an education program on the availability and safety of new technologies, including irradiation, that eliminate or substantially reduce the levels of pathogens in meat and poultry products. Last year we convened a meeting with a group of the foremost experts on pasteurization/irradiation to start developing an education program. We expect much to come out of this group as we continue to develop and deliver an effective education program for pasteurization/irradiation.
Efforts to Improve International Safety The U.S. food safety system is the gold standard for the world. Because we have the same safety requirements for the U.S. meat and poultry produced for export and for products entering the United States, our efforts to continually improve our food safety system have a global impact.
We are fully committed to working with our international partners in ensuring a safe global food supply. Under my direction, the Office of Food Safety leads the U.S. office of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is an international standard-setting body for food safety. Our active leadership in Codex contributes to decisions that have profound effects on national economies and the health and well being of citizens around the world. That is why FSIS strives to educate the public, our U.S. partners, and interested partners around the world about the important role Codex plays in developing science-based global food safety standards. It is in our national interest to maintain our leadership role in Codex in order to ensure food safety regulations around the world are reasonable, equitable, and achievable.
Another example of our commitment to international food safety is through education. Last year, we cosponsored with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the “Thinking Globally – Working Locally: A Conference on Food Safety Education.” The conference included breakout sessions, workshops, and tours focusing on the food safety education implications of the global food supply. Over 600 participants from the U.S. and abroad attended.
We also reached out to rural women worldwide through participation in the Third International Congress on Women in Agriculture held in Spain last year. We delivered our food safety education message at this conference to help strengthen our message throughout the world.
Risk Assessment While FSIS has been able to use risk assessments to better shape our policy, we also need to make sure that the risk assessments that we carry out address the agency’s needs. Our talented and dedicated leadership team has made it clear to the FSIS workforce and to industry that science will dictate our food safety programs. At the moment, there is no formal infrastructure for science-based policy making. We are working hard to rectify this. You cannot craft a solution in this highly complex food production world if you have not specifically identified the problem.
We need a central, state-of-the-art source for the development of risk assessment models. We are working now on designing such a plan. It is getting increasingly difficult to manage a threat when we are unsure of its pervasiveness. Risk assessment provides this vital data. The benefits of using risk assessments can be seen in our recent initiatives on E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes that I discussed earlier. This process needs to be strengthened, formalized, and continually supported in order to be used to its full potential. By strengthening the agency’s reliance on risk assessments to shape future policy, we will be better prepared to fight the war on pathogens.
To be effective, we need to both analyze current threats to the food supply and anticipate problems that may arise. There are times when we work in a completely reactive mode and I do not think this serves us well when we try to anticipate new challenges.
I am well aware that there are gaps in our current universe of food safety research and until we close the gaps we will not be able to fully understand, or control, the farm-to-table continuum. We need to bring the brightest food safety minds from throughout the country together in a way that will help the Federal government, industry, foodservice and the American people. Validated Decontamination Methods We need to focus on the application of validated decontamination methods in order to reduce pathogens. A conscious effort has been made when drafting FSIS’ Notices and Directives to encourage industry to utilize new decontamination technologies. Scientific and technical innovation that keeps our food safer should be encouraged. Therefore, we intend to consider further ways to validate these technologies in order to ensure their ability to reduce foodborne pathogens.
We believe that new technology provides a great opportunity to enhance the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products. Thus, the agency continues steps to encourage and provide opportunities for technological advances and innovation under the PR/HACCP rules. We recently announced new procedures for new technology intended for use in establishments. These procedures were designed to encourage innovation by eliminating undue delays in the development, testing, and use of new technology. This will allow FSIS to respond efficiently and expeditiously when technological innovations become available and help, not hinder, in the implementation of these food safety tools. Initiatives from the FY 2004 Budget Request At this time, I would like to focus on the initiatives of the FY 2004 food safety budget request and indicate how this additional funding will help us reach our goals. I firmly believe these resources will help us make the necessary improvements aimed at protecting the health and safety of the public we serve.
The FY 2004 budget request supports FSIS’ basic mission of ensuring continuous inspection in each meat, poultry, and egg products establishment in our country and reinspection of imported product. It also reflects President Bush’s deep concern about ensuring a strong food safety system. His record level budget request for food safety programs will allow FSIS to continue working to fully implement the goals we have laid out, but will also allow us to pursue new initiatives.
USDA’s food safety budget requests a program level of $899 million, an increase of $42 million over the enacted level for FY 2003. This funding represents a $148 million, or 23 percent, increase for USDA food safety activities since FY 2000. The $42 million increase in the FY 2004 budget to strengthen FSIS’ food safety program encompasses $23.6 million in increases to cover raises in employees’ salaries and benefits, the costs of inflation, and FSIS’ support of State-inspection programs.
The other part of the budget increase covers $19.3 million in initiatives to fund the hiring of more food safety inspectors, provide specialized scientific and technical training for the inspection workforce, increase microbiological testing and sampling, strengthen foreign surveillance programs, and increase our public education efforts.
As I mentioned, it is absolutely necessary that we use science to improve food safety. One of the ways the President’s budget helps us do that is through the $1.7 million to do baseline studies on a variety of pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7. This funding will strengthen the backbone of effective policy making by allowing us to collect data on the presence of microbial hazards, which is a crucial component used in developing risk assessment models.
Another means of employing science is the strategy of equipping our frontline workforce with scientific and technical expertise. The $5.7 million requested in the President’s budget will help us expand our in-depth HACCP and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) training to all of our veterinarians and inspectors. With these resources, we will be able to increase consistency, effectiveness and accuracy of food inspection, thus making our food safer.
Along with this notion of a well-trained inspection workforce, is the fact that FSIS needs to have a full complement of inspectors. For this purpose, the President’s budget requested $4.3 million in funding to increase our workforce to 7,680 in-plant staff by adding 80 new positions. These 80 positions are necessary to ensure continuous inspection of all meat, poultry, and egg products plants.
When a foodborne outbreak occurs, it is essential to identify the source of the outbreak so that the agency can take swift action to prevent further illnesses and warn the public of the adulterated product. Therefore, the FY 2004 budget request includes $4.5 million to provide additional microbiologists, chemists, laboratory technicians, and other personnel to increase the agency’s ability to identify adulterants in meat, poultry, and egg products. This funding will help the agency develop analytical methods to test food products for chemical, biological, and radiological contamination. This initiative will also increase sampling of ready-to-eat products for the presence of bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. With this funding, FSIS will increase sampling of these products from 10,000 to 15,000 annually and will add the capability to conduct 5,000 Listeria monocytogenes environmental samples annually. The agency also plans to increase sampling of raw ground beef and raw ground beef ingredients for E. coli O157:H7 from 7,000 to 15,000 samples annually.
Additionally, the President’s budget includes $1.8 million to increase the number of foreign program auditors, thereby strengthening our oversight at the location where the food is actually produced or manufactured for export to the United States. This augments our existing strong system of ensuring that imported food is safe.
Our public education effort, which I discussed earlier in our five goals, is one avenue we are aggressively taking to make sure that all food handlers and preparers follow safe food handling practices to reduce foodborne illness. The President’s budget request for an additional $1.5 million for food safety education will allow the agency to continue to research and develop a sustainable and comprehensive mass media campaign across the country.
Finally, the FY 2004 budget request includes a proposal to recover the costs of providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour primary shift. FSIS already collects $102 million in reimbursable fees to recover the costs associated with overtime, holiday, and voluntary inspection services. FSIS has submitted legislation to Congress to allow the agency to collect user fees for inspection services beyond one approved eight-hour shift per day. If approved by Congress, it will enable the agency to collect approximately $122 million in user fees and reduce our appropriated request from $797 million to $675 million. This will result in a savings for the American taxpayer.
Closing In closing, I want to emphasize that we already have a strong food safety infrastructure in place. We have made great progress in achieving the goals we have set for ourselves. We have a strong leadership team to direct us toward improving our ultimate goal of protecting public health.
The President’s budget for FY 2004 provides us with a historic opportunity to -- not only do what is right -- but to do what is needed, which is to employ science to its fullest potential to make food in the United States as safe as possible. With the support and assistance of this Administration and Congress, I am confident we can do just that.
This concludes my written statement. I want to thank the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of USDA’s Office of Food Safety. I welcome your questions.
