Analysts from the Heritage Foundation have studied the current policies and procedures of the food system of the United States, outlining problems with current practices and with reform ideas from the government. The major issues concerning food safety revolve around the regulation of imported products into the U.S. and the way government agencies interact to promote safer food.

In the current system the regulation of food is split between the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency of the Department of Homeland security. FSIS regulates meat, poultry and egg products, FDA regulates everything else, and CBP regulates imports into the country.

Although FSIS regulates a smaller percentage of the nation’s food supply than the FDA, FSIS receives more government funding and handles food safety much differently than the FDA. FSIS creates a list of countries (currently 34) that comply with U.S. safety standards and allows the import of products from firms who are certified by their home nation’s government. The CBP then verifies shipping records when products reach U.S. borders. Once on U.S. soil, FSIS inspects the products in 33 different ports among 135 inspection centers, using a computer system to record vital information. All products must be visually inspected by FSIS officials, while a computer system randomly generates a variety of products to also undergo laboratory testing.

The FDA, on the other hand, utilizes a completely different system. The FDA inspects each foreign firm in order to certify safe producers. This is a difficult task so the agency notes which importing firms are a high or low risk, and does on-site testing on that basis. The FDA can also communicate with the CBP computer systems, while FSIS cannot, to see if the shipments reaching the ports are verified. Because of the lack of funding, the FDA is understaffed and inspections occur far less frequently than FSIS inspections.

Washington has noted the flaws in the procedures of the FDA and FSIS, and has attempted to pass a new strategy to control the safety of our nation’s imported food products. The strategy implements aspects of both systems, calling for more interagency cooperation and for the formation of a single agency to regulate the entire food supply. The reform also includes the certification of countries to import products into America, utilizing import fees and restricting the number of ports available to import products.

The Heritage Foundation, however, sees flaws in the government’s attempt to reform the current system. Rather than imposing penalties on other countries to import food and increasing a government hold on the system, the Heritage Foundation promotes a free market solution to the problem. With simplified government regulations and expanded research into food safety from a scientific standpoint, market forces will promote a safer food supply. Rather than losing money due to bad publicity, companies will voluntarily remove unsafe products from store shelves and competitive forces in the market will favor safer foods. But the Foundation also sees the need for government agencies to have the power to impose mandatory recalls for companies who handle their products irresponsibly.

We respectfully disagree with the Heritage Foundation with regards to a free market solution. This is basically the current federal policy of industry self regulation. As evidenced by the numerous recalls and foodborne outbreaks, this is a failed policy. We do agree that the federal government needs to have the power to impose mandatory recalls on food and other dangerous products.

Labels: FDA, food imports, food regulation, food safety, FSIS

Melamine Found in Cookies

 

A phylogenetic analysis of E. coli O157:H7 has found that recombination or recurrent mutation has contributed to the evolution of E. coli O157:H7 into more virulent strains. The research was prompted by several recent outbreaks involving E. coli O157:H7 (e.g., 2006 spinach E. coli outbreak) that were “associated with more severe disease, as defined by higher hemolytic uremic syndrome and hospitalization frequencies, suggesting that increased virulence has evolved.”

500 E. coli O157:H7 clinical strains were analyzed and separated into 9 distinct clades:

Differences were observed between clades in the frequency and distribution of Shiga toxin genes and in the type of clinical disease reported. Patients with hemolytic uremic syndrome were significantly more likely to be infected with clade 8 strains, which have increased in frequency over the past 5 years. Genome sequencing of a spinach outbreak strain, a member of clade 8, also revealed substantial genomic differences. These findings suggest that an emergent subpopulation of the clade 8 lineage has acquired critical factors that contribute to more severe disease.

Read the results of this study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

As part of this study, Thomas Whittam, Hannah Distinguished Professor at the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State University and David Alland of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, two co-authors of the study, developed a new technique to test E. coli O157:H7 DNA.

Posted March 2008.

Labels: DNA testing, food safety