GAO and a single food inspection agency: Will it actually make food safer? Will fewer people get sick?
When it comes to the safety of the food supply, I generally ignore the chatter from Washington. If a proposal does emerge, such as the creation of a single food inspection agency, I ask, Will it actually make food safer? Will fewer people get sick?
Much is being made this morning about a new report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, and how the U.S. is lagging behind other countries – countries that have single food inspection systems. The Chicago Tribune says, On food safety, U.S. not No. 1, while the L.A. Times offers an editorial, U.S. lags on food regulation.
So I spent the end of another stellar day in Melbourne, and the beginning of a new day back home, by reading the report and comparing it to some of the Washington chatter.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said,
"Today's GAO report shows that America ranked eighth out of eight countries -- dead last -- in terms of national food safety systems.”
There was no such ranking in the report. There was no ranking at all in the report.
Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) said,
“This GAO report highlights how effectively a single food safety agency could protect our food supply. … By focusing on the entire food supply chain, placing primary responsibility for food safety on producers, and ensuring that food imports meet equivalent safety standards. …”
The U.S. system already does that. And the report says nothing about how a single food inspection agency could better accomplish such tasks.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest says,
“The GAO report also shows that creating a unified food safety program is technologically and economically feasible, and most important, effective in helping to reduce foodborne illness.”
There were no measures of effectiveness for any of the single food inspection agencies, other than whether public opinion or confidence in the shiny, happy new agencies increased over time based on self-reported surveys. A few advertisements could have accomplished that.
There was certainly no mention of any agency reducing the incidence of foodborne illness. The seven countries studied – Canada, UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands – said they reorganized their food inspection agencies to improve effectiveness and efficiency; not one said to improve public health and have fewer sick people.
The GAO report -- Selected Countries’ Systems Can Offer Insights into Ensuring Import Safety and Responding to Foodborne Illness – did say:
“The burden for food safety in most of the selected countries lies primarily with food producers, rather than with inspectors, although inspectors play an active role in overseeing compliance. This principle applies to both domestic and imported products.”
That’s good.
“None of the selected countries had comprehensively evaluated its reorganized food safety system … Most of the selected countries use proxy measures, such as public opinion surveys, to assess their effectiveness. Public opinion in several countries has improved in recent years.”
That’s bad.
In Canada, “At the consumer end of the spectrum, the food safety agency educates Canadians about safe food-handling practices and various food safety risks through its Web site, food safety fact sheets, and the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, a group of industry, consumer, and government organizations that jointly develop and implement a national program to educate consumers on how to safely handle food.”
That’s awful.
To summarize: no rankings, no measures of effectiveness, and not much fact-checking.
Should there be a single food inspection agency in the U.S.? Maybe. But will it enhance the safety of the food supply? Will it mean fewer sick people?
Much is being made this morning about a new report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, and how the U.S. is lagging behind other countries – countries that have single food inspection systems. The Chicago Tribune says, On food safety, U.S. not No. 1, while the L.A. Times offers an editorial, U.S. lags on food regulation.So I spent the end of another stellar day in Melbourne, and the beginning of a new day back home, by reading the report and comparing it to some of the Washington chatter.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said,
"Today's GAO report shows that America ranked eighth out of eight countries -- dead last -- in terms of national food safety systems.”
There was no such ranking in the report. There was no ranking at all in the report.
Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) said,
“This GAO report highlights how effectively a single food safety agency could protect our food supply. … By focusing on the entire food supply chain, placing primary responsibility for food safety on producers, and ensuring that food imports meet equivalent safety standards. …”
The U.S. system already does that. And the report says nothing about how a single food inspection agency could better accomplish such tasks.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest says,
“The GAO report also shows that creating a unified food safety program is technologically and economically feasible, and most important, effective in helping to reduce foodborne illness.”
There were no measures of effectiveness for any of the single food inspection agencies, other than whether public opinion or confidence in the shiny, happy new agencies increased over time based on self-reported surveys. A few advertisements could have accomplished that.
There was certainly no mention of any agency reducing the incidence of foodborne illness. The seven countries studied – Canada, UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands – said they reorganized their food inspection agencies to improve effectiveness and efficiency; not one said to improve public health and have fewer sick people.
The GAO report -- Selected Countries’ Systems Can Offer Insights into Ensuring Import Safety and Responding to Foodborne Illness – did say:
“The burden for food safety in most of the selected countries lies primarily with food producers, rather than with inspectors, although inspectors play an active role in overseeing compliance. This principle applies to both domestic and imported products.”
That’s good.
“None of the selected countries had comprehensively evaluated its reorganized food safety system … Most of the selected countries use proxy measures, such as public opinion surveys, to assess their effectiveness. Public opinion in several countries has improved in recent years.”
That’s bad.
In Canada, “At the consumer end of the spectrum, the food safety agency educates Canadians about safe food-handling practices and various food safety risks through its Web site, food safety fact sheets, and the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, a group of industry, consumer, and government organizations that jointly develop and implement a national program to educate consumers on how to safely handle food.”
That’s awful.
To summarize: no rankings, no measures of effectiveness, and not much fact-checking.
Should there be a single food inspection agency in the U.S.? Maybe. But will it enhance the safety of the food supply? Will it mean fewer sick people?
Trackbacks (4)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/80008
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/80008
BarfBlog -
July 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Dr. David Acheson, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's associate commissioner for foods, announced at a mid-afternoon teleconference Monday that a sample of jalapenos tainted with Salmonella Saintpaul was found at a packing plant in Texas and came ...
BarfBlog -
July 31, 2008 2:08 PM
I know there’s lots of serious stuff going on in Washington, where a bunch of food safety suits are playing advocates for whatever lobby they represent – and they all represent a lobby – and a lot of politicians are...
BarfBlog -
February 6, 2009 7:44 PM
In apparent good news for the rest of the American food industry, the folks at Peanut Company of America appear to be douchebags acting on their own after Food and Drug Administration types on Friday said the Blakely, Ga., plant...
BarfBlog -
March 14, 2009 6:37 AM
U.S. President Barack Obama used his weekly radio – and YouTube – address today to bolster and reorganize the nation’s fractured food-safety system by forming a committee -- the Food Safety Working Group. President Clinton had a simil...
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
Dear Dough:
I have always seen that you had not objected, but on the contrary, has encouraged innovation in regard to food safety
Furthermore, your attitude to propose new creative ideas in the field of communication (spot the mistakes is
a good example of your creativity on this way, and much others)
I find difficult to understand your veiled criticism of integrated systems of food control,
suggested today by FAO and WHO in various documents ..
The resources of taxpayers must be turned in an effective and efficient systems that do not
overlap in their activities or allow black holes in control.
Possibly recent outbreaks in veggies are a example of this... perhaps the eggs control too: who controls
the eggs and their products? The fragmentation of food control conspires against a good distribution of
economic resources in that way ...
Possibly more time is needed to quantify these unique agency, but it is a world voice
(more and more countries have a system that only those who cited the GAO: Austria, New Zealand-Australia, Japan,
Spain, Portugal, China, Panama and others belived that is necessary to unify control systems for food ...
you should read the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences for your country.
This indicator that you suggests -reduction of food-borne diseases- may be depends on the methods used by agencies,
rather than unifying them, but in the medium term, unification also show greater effectiveness in the achievements.
But the unification of the food control agencies in a short time allows better manage resources for food control rapidly
improving the efficiency of the local system.
Sorry for my bad english.
Thanks for your time.
Compliments to you.
As the blamefest continues in Washington, I concur with the question of whether all this banter will make our food safer. Certainly the FDA needs additional support, especially in terms of ensuring compliance and providing surveillance. But responsibility must be taken by the companies who buy, handle, and sell. If I need an operation, do I just go to any doctor? Do I want a government inspector in the operating room watching over the operation? No, I do my homework in choosing a good doctor. This should be the same for companies that handle, process, and sell product…know your supplier. If you are purchasing through a broker, then that broker has the responsibility for ensuring that their supplier, the producer, has systems in place to ensure safety. There are numerous tools available to help them achieve this, including programs like SQF and other third party audits. Building safety into the system is better than relying on government inspection. And for those that choose not to build safety into the process, then we have a litigation process there to penalize.
Responsibility by the companies - all companies producing and handling food should have verified HACCP programs in place. Food companies and brokers should purchase from approved vendors, whether domestic or imported. This will add to the cost of the groceries we buy, but I believe that additional cost will be better utilized than the tax dollars given to the government agencies for inspection.