FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 21, 1997
Contact: Michael Tebo (202) 328-5019
U.S. FOOD SAFETY SYSTEM NEEDS GREATER GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION TO MEET CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY
WASHINGTON, DC -- The federal government has made substantial progress recently to improve America's food safety system by adopting a new regulatory framework that focuses on prevention and clearly defines the roles industry and government must play. But reform of the system must go further and assign responsibilities more clearly, make better use of scarce resources, and prepare for future challenges, including those posed by persistent foodborne illnesses and the globalization of the food economy, according to an article published in the new Food and Drug Law Journal.
The article, titled "Preparing America's Food Safety System for the 21st Century: Who is Responsible for What When it Comes to Meeting the Food Safety Challenges of the Consumer-Driven Global Economy?" appears in the Journal's current issue (Volume 52, Issue 1). It is authored by Michael R. Taylor, who served from 1994-96 as both the Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and administrator for its Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). He is now a visiting scholar in the Center for Risk Management at Resources for the Future (RFF).
"There really are two food safety systems in the U.S.," says Taylor. "One for meat and poultry, administered by USDA, and one for seafood and all other components of the food supply, administered primarily by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Certainly, the current system is not the one anyone would design if starting with a clean state."
In his article, Taylor argues that the organizational and statutory fragmentation of the current system for food safety -- which includes twelve Federal agencies working under thirty-five statutes -- hinders the best use of resources; complicates adoption of consistent, risk-based food safety strategies; and is at odds with the clear assignment of responsibility and accountability for food safety. Further, food safety research is conducted by 21 Federal agencies. Although more than $200 million is spent annually on research activities, Taylor notes that there is no formal coordinating mechanism and government-wide food safety research strategy.
However, the regulatory changes recently adopted by FDA and USDA are cause for optimism, says Taylor, because they establish a sound conceptual framework for the future. Called the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system, this new approach targets significant risks, minimizes costly command-and-control regulation in favor of performance-based standards, and focuses the food industry and government on what each does best. It aims to systematically prevent food safety problems by clearly defining the food's industry's responsibility -- and respecting its capacity -- to produce safe food, and gives government agencies the modern, scientific tools they need to verify the success of the industry's efforts.
Taylor outlines successes and progress made in food safety in recent years through industry and government collaboration; describes the traditional (and often overlapping) roles and responsibilities for food safety at FDA and USDA; and highlights the differences in day-to-day responsibilities and implementation as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Taylor concludes by identifying some of the key issues that still need to be resolved to meet the food safety-related challenges of the next century. These challenges include: further reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses; successfully managing the introduction of new food technologies; overseeing and facilitating international trade; and maintaining public confidence in the food supply. To meet these challenges, Taylor urges expanded collaboration between industry and government, better coordination within government, and improvement in such areas as epidemiological surveillance of foodborne illness, food safety research, technology development, and food safety education for consumers and commercial food handlers.
Taylor notes that the food safety initiative announced by President Clinton in January 1997 as part of his budget proposal for the next fiscal year is intended to address many of these needs. The initiative, says Taylor, provides a golden opportunity for a national discussion by the food industry, the consumer community and the government about the future of the nation's food safety system.
"The adoption of HACCP is an important step forward in food safety," says Taylor. "But it is only a first step. To satisfy the public's food safety expectations and realize the food industry's full potential in the global food economy, we must work to resolve what we want our food safety system to do for us in the next century, who will be responsible for what, and how we are going to pay for it."
# # #
In addition to his appointment at RFF, Michael Taylor is a partner at the law firm of King & Spalding. Under Taylor's leadership at USDA, the agency adopted the HAACP system for meat and poultry inspection; established the first performance standards for reducing harmful bacteria in raw meat and poultry; began the elimination of outdated, command-and-control regulation; and realigned and streamlined FSIS management structures to carry out the new food safety system. Before joining USDA, Taylor served for three years as deputy commissioner for policy at FDA where he oversaw the agency's policy development activities and the processing of all regulations.
# # #
To order the issue of Food and Drug Law Journal in which this article appears, call (202) 371-1420. Reference Volume 52, Issue 1.
RSS