What's Needed to Protect Our Nation's Food Supply

The White House's Food Safety Working Group's public-health-focused approach to food safety signals a new day when it comes to protecting our nation's food supply. By enhancing prevention, strengthening enforcement, and improving response, the Obama administration is taking the needed steps to beef up our ailing system. And after years of neglect and countless recalls, both Congress and the White House are finally reforming and updating our food safety system.

The salmonella scare of 2008 left almost 1500 people across 43 states sick -- with tomatoes first incorrectly suspected as the culprit and jalapeños in Mexico later identified to be the source. Earlier this year, nine people died and thousands were sickened as a result of tainted peanut butter. And most recently, meat from my home state of Colorado was pulled from store shelves. The cavalcade of recalls leads one to ask: What outbreak will be next? More importantly, how can we prevent it?

After each crisis and subsequent recall, it has become glaringly clear that our food safety system is broken. It is a woefully underfunded system designed during the latter half of the 20th century that has failed to adapt to our 21st century marketplace. The Food and Drug Administration and our other food safety agencies require enforceable powers to protect consumers from tainted foods, including the authority to recall, locate, and prevent outbreaks altogether.

Individual companies now have the voluntary responsibility of recalling their own products. While many companies have acted properly and swiftly to recall contaminated goods, the delay between the identification of tainted foods and the company's decision to recall those foods leads to the needless sickness of too many Americans. Many are shocked to learn that the FDA does not have the authority to force a recall. In the recent contaminated peanut butter outbreak, for example, the fact that the company in question suspected its product was tainted and yet refused to act on that knowledge serves as a potent reminder that giving the FDA mandatory recall authority is critical.

To complement mandatory recall authority, the FDA must also have the capacity to trace tainted foods from the field to the fork. During the salmonella outbreak in 2008, for example, officials were eventually able to track the contaminated jalapeños to an individual sector of a specific field in Mexico. In the meantime though, the tomato industry was decimated because it was first suspected to be the cause of contamination. With traceability, we could have quickly identified the specific tainted jalapeños as the offending vegetable and moved to contain the outbreak before it spread across the country. By allowing us to isolate outbreaks and avoid unnecessary recalls of safe foods, the ability to trace foods through every point in the supply chain is a vital component that serves the interests of not only consumers but also businesses looking to protect their bottom lines.

The Obama administration's support for the goals of its working group is a crucial first step. However, statutory changes are also needed to fully reform our food safety system. It is now Congress' turn to act by granting our food safety agencies new authorities that can endure the growing demands of our system. Among these authorities, the FDA must also have increased funding and more inspectors in order for the agency to adequately monitor the process whereby food arrives on our dinner tables each night. By giving the FDA adequate resources and authority to both prevent outbreaks and intervene once they appear, we can support the administration's efforts to reassure the parents of America that the food they feed their children is the product of the safest system in the world.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), serving her 7th term as the representative for Colorado's First Congressional District, is vice chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This op-ed is cross posted with The Mission Ahead, Roll Call's online policy forum.

Comments

[LeahMtLion]

FDA - Well we do teach our children to wash their hands and go to potty in the bathroom. but lets look at where and how our food is grown. Are those who grow and pick food brought up to wash hands and go to potty?? doubt it.. and i have noted recent country of origin on fruit and veggies in safeway, all other imported items must show country of origin.. it 's about time.
there is a government website from Pueblo,CO that indicates all recalled items. it is staggering how much junk is brought in and sold.. I am a 30 yr veteran of the freight industry and never recall something coming in that wasnt inspected or at least the paperwork wasnt reviewed.
Are we so afraid of ethnic backlash that we put our lives at risk eating things that may be contaminated? as it is true few anglos work in the fields. Boy am i glad i am building a greenhouse!!!!

[sixyfivepercentwater]

I don't think giving the FDA more authority is the answer. At best this would only address food contamination after the fact, and that is not what we should be aiming at. Instead, we need to ban the use of fertilizers and pesticides which are known to be unsafe, and we need to ban the import of foods from countries which allow those chemicals and those which are already banned in the US.

As in so many green issues, we can look to the European model for guidelines. Their standards mandate organic or nearly organic production, and their produce and meats are all traceable to the source.

I'm weary of farmers' markets being touted as manna from heaven. We know exactly as much about how food is produced locally as we do about food produced on the other side of the country. The fact that tomatoes were grown next door does not mean they were grown in a safe manner, and there are absolutely no checks on locally grown produce. The only food we can be sure of is the food we've grown ourselves - and even then, we will have used supplemental city water and it will have absorbed pollutants from the air.

[WYHKTai-Tai]

Look to Australia or New Zealand for the safe- food model. They have the strictest guidelines on all fronts and I might add the best fresh produce and meat in the world.

[plzchuteme]

But wasn't a New Zealand firm pretty tightly wrapped up in the Chinese melamine milk contamination?

[mergina]

My dear, the American food supply IS TOXIC. Ever wonder just why America leads the world in CANCER? All cancers?

[sixyfivepercentwater]

One reason for America's high cancer rate is the high rate of cancer screening in this country, especially for old people. Other developed countries do not do nearly as much preventive screening as we do. But you're right - the food is toxic. I'm convinced prepared foods are the worst, because they contain preservatives and additives which act and interact in unknown ways. Some of their effects may be cumulative. The sudden onset of ADHD and peanut allergies in children should be a clue that we're doing something very wrong. While e.coli is dramatic and life-threatening, we should pay just as much attention to the huge increase in "irritable bowel syndrome" and other digestive disorders, which might not be diseases per se but our body's way of trying to get rid of poisons. Small doses of poison over long periods of time are just as dangerous as one huge dose.

I feel we are fairly safe if we buy "organic" - although that term can be less than meaningful - and we prepare food in our own home from basic ingredients being mindful of hygiene. For me, the joy of eating in a restaurant is a thing of the past - and I don't miss it very much.

[mergina]

MARVELOUS POST.

[rocketman69]

"With traceability, we could have quickly identified the specific tainted jalapeños as the offending vegetable and moved to contain the outbreak before it spread across the country."

How are going to trace things like that? Force everyone in the country to submit reports of food consumption to the government?

[gulopartisan]

Lord, don't let Congress hear you!!

[Coloradoan]

Rep. DeGette, while you are right to question food safety, you are also obliged to address the serious concerns with the proposed legislation that come from those of us committed to fairer, more sustainable and healthful food production; both consumer (like me) and producer alike.

Serious concerns have been raised about the as-yet poorly defined but seemingly sweeping powers to be granted to the FDA. These concerns rightly question WHO will be writing the implementation rules and regulations; whether small/organic producers and family farms will be effectively or fairly represented; and whether such rules and regulations will serve to put such small or "non-conventional" producers out of business.

Unless these interests are protected, we shall see further vertical and horizontal consolidation (and centralization ) of food production, which have in fact likely exacerbated instances of contamination. These trends are also putting our nation at increasing risk when it comes to food security.

I challenge Rep. DeGette to resolve these concerns to the satisfaction of the organic and small producers. This is a serious issue that neither you nor your constituents can afford to get wrong.. It would be better to do nothing than to get this one wrong.

[LemonMeringue]

Watch Food, Inc. - a documentary in some theaters now.

Three companies control almost all our food supply.

Monsanto controls almost all the seeds.

It isn't terrorists who threaten us most.

[myna]

Indeed. Reminds me of the "too big to fail" list:

Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Morgan Stanley
Citigroup

[pyt333]

More regulation doesn't hurt small farmers, it hurts the farm conglomerates. Very little of our produce or meat comes from small farms because they aren't as "cost effective" as large farms. However, in order to be cost effective, these farms genetically engineer our produce which they feed to us and to cattle. We absolutely need more regulation. The FDA's job should be to increase regulations and police these companies to ENSURE that we, the public, aren't dying because of what we eat.
The green river killer killed 48 people and the entire country was up in arms. Why aren't we angry over the thousands of people killed by the food industry in the past few years? We tax cigarettes because they kill you, why not fast food? Why not charge corporations extra for creating-yes, creating-food that contributes to diabetes, cancer and immediate death. The food industry says "personal responsibility". According to a film called, "Food, Inc." the Monsanto corporation genetically engineered a soybean that is now planted in roughly 90% of the farms in this country. Where is my choice in that?

[gulopartisan]

"More regulation" is useless if all it does is "regulate" the small farm operations that are not the problem. If you read the Food Safety bill, you will find that it does little to regulate corporate food production, while imposing regulation and financial hobbles on small farmers that will drive many of them out of business. The question of the cost effectiveness of small farms is not settled. Read Wendell Berry, Michael Pollan, or Joel Salatin before you repeat that corporate mantra. The reason small farms can't feed America is that farming is, for the most part, a kind of indentured servitude -- as Food, Inc. demonstrates so graphically. Only 1% of our population farmers. Watch that percentage continue to drop.

[RedRat]

ProgressiveVoice :
Of course you are right. However, while there are bad guys in the food industry, just like the rest of our society, by and large the food industry is very much interested in producing safe and wholesome foods. When people get sick, or at worse die or left with debilitating illness, the food industry can be sued and pay damages. They do have a sword of Damocles over their collective heads.

In my experience as a scientist, I have worked with the food industry. The vast majority of people in various food companies were very much interested in making their products safe. Those companies bent over backward when they were found to have a contaminated product. Injuring your customer is not the best idea in the world.

The past 20 years have been a disaster for food regulation. In order to have effective regulation and have a reasonable chance of producing safe foods you need a strong agency with sufficient manpower to enforce and inspect. You also need the WILL to enforce regulation. Congress emasculated the agencies reducing their manpower and ability to inspect. The Bush Administration appointees did little to enforce existing regulations--the market will regulate (sound familiar??).

All regulations must be based on sound science. While many fear a "gestapo" approach, and this has occurred in the past, these negative approaches can be controlled if both government, industry, and scientific entities are all at the table when regulations are proposed.

[gulopartisan]

One of the essential fallacies of our culture is the idea that a corporation is a collective of "people who work there." A corporation is a "person," and its will vetos the "nice people." If a family farmer kills a kid, he goes to jail. If a "meat company" kills a kid, it bankrupts the mother and goes free. Where are we on Kevin's Law?

[fruitfarmer]

The problem of food safety comes from large corporations producing "edible food-like substances". Their sole responsibility is to increase shareholder value: cheaper inputs, often imports from foreign countries with less stringent standards, and more "efficient" processes. When it comes to food, this is a recipe for empty calories, obesity, and an unhealthy populous.

Don't blame the corporations; they tell us they don't care about us. Blame us, the eaters who demand cheap food more than nutrition and health; who spend our food dollars in super markets on corporate-produced food products rather than going to a farmers market and getting to know and trust the farmers who grow our food.

Forget DeGette's legislation. First adequately fund FDA's existing inspection and enforcement function which has been starved into insignificance. We don't necessarily need a lot of new rules, just adequate funding of existing ones.

Mandatory food traceability from field to table will add significant expense and headache for us small farmers. The effect could be devastating to the very farmers who actually care about the quality of the food they produce. Our customers aren't demanding it; they know they're getting quality. It smells like an idea being promoted by the big corporate farmers to force us out of business and thereby expand their "market share".

[ProgressiveVoice]

"gives the FDA Gestapo-like powers to preside over small farmers, yet allows food from Mexico and China off scott-free. It is an assault on the little farmer as well as organic producers and even the Amish!"

This is what happens when the task of writing legislation is passed to the very corporations to be legislated. There is no question that there is a food safety crisis in this country but "reforming and updating our food safety system" is unnecessary and has opened the door to corporate favoritism which will ultimately be more harmful to consumers.

Well-funded government emphasis should be on independent inspection, investigation and research (best practices, etc.). A hierarchy of notification and authority between inspecting agencies, from county to federal, must be established. The bones of a good system are in place; with a few adjustments, it's a good starting point for the necessary changes.

[RedRat]

I find comments by myna and jeanruss somewhat distrubing. Frankly, if a farmer wants to grow his/her food in human waste, that is his privilege, but just don't try to sell it in interstate commerce. How you grow your own food is your business but when you try to sell it to someone, it is not unreasonable to expect that that food is wholesome and safe to eat. That is where the FDA comes in.

I think both of these writers have little understanding about food production, processing, and distribution in this country. It is not really possible for over 300 million of us to depend solely on "local production" (whatever that may mean). I am guesing that the average family goes through maybe 50 heads of lettuce, maybe several hundred tomatos in a year, year round! Can you produce that amount of food locally, especially in winter? I really doubt that, nor do I have the time and resource to even think of engaging in that kind of food production.

Growing, producing, and distributing food is a business. I don't care if your local farmer wants to grow stuff and sell it, but they do it had better be safe. After all, Salmonella from a local guy or from a peasant farm in Mexico still can kill you, just one is local and the other is foreign.

[Roguer]

The traditional solution to year round vegetables­... home canning... it is what my parents did... my grandparents did... my great grandparen­ts... it is what we do here on the farm. Freezing is also a great way of preserving seasonal foods for winter consumption.

Suggestion­... go buy a couple bushels of tomatoes..­. make your own salsa, tomato soup, spaghetti and pizza sauce.

It takes just a couple quarts of strawberries to make a batch of jam. Takes less than an hour.

Learn to live seasonally, appreciate the times of harvest and bounty, and preserve it for times when fresh food is out of season.

[jeanruss]

Most dangerous contamnation comes from huge agribusiness operations. Organic farms have higher yields than gmo farms. They also are good for the environment. The dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico are caused by pesticide runoff. Every day in the news are studies showing that pesticides cause cancer, especially in children. As the parent of a child who died of cancer, I was horrified by the reasearch I discovered in trying to save her life. Our most expensive disease in the healthcare nightmare has a direct link with chemicals on and in our food and water. We humans have to learn to work WITH nature, not against it, because nature always wins. I beg to differ about not knowing what we are talking about. I never said we should only depend on local agriculture, however, it certainly has its place of extreme value and shouldn't be beaten down by greedy corporations only concerned with profit. The rest of the world including Europe are fighting products from Monsanto and agribusiness because the research shows their harm to human health. Since when should such a vital issue bedecided hastily with little debate? What do they have to hide? This alone raises the antenna of anyone with any sense. If this bill was truly good for us they wouldn't need these tactics to pass it.

[Pyrum]

Diana DeGette - You are the only Congressperson in Colorado who has not yet co-sponsored H.R. 1207, the Audit the Fed bill. What's up with that? Now you're talking about allowing the FDA more autonomy as well? How about you stop pretending you care about your constituents and start actually doing something to represent them?

[noneIn2008]

#1 as the earth cools, we will have fewer crops. Yet, we are distracted to spend millions to fund farmers to not grow crops.

[LemonMeringue]

Or millions to pay farmers to grow a single kind of seed that Monsanto has patented and that cannot be saved from year to year.

[CarbonCreditSeller]

From a farmer's perspective - this is how it all starts. Regulation and oversight, then "guidance" (really penalties) for crops, then some discussion at the political level of how the farmers are not producing enough, then blaming the farmers, then implementing centralized policies for food production, then lying about the results - this is the way to starvation and the way the administration is leading the country.

[myna]

Author: Why does HR 2749 permit warrantless searches of business records?