|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture |
Department of Health and Human Services |
Environmental Protection Agency |
Department of Commerce |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture |
Department of Health and Human Services |
Environmental Protection Agency |
Department of Commerce |
MEETING SUMMARY
(Meeting Agenda)
The President's Council on Food Safety was directed to develop a comprehensive food safety strategic plan as part of its mission to focus and strengthen the government's efforts to coordinate food safety policies. As part of the strategic planning process, the Council held a public meeting on July 15, 1999 to discuss the development of the strategic plan. This was the fifth in a series of public meetings to solicit opinions and comments on the strategic plan. Over 200 participants attended the meeting representing consumers, industry, academia, as well as state, local, and federal officials.
Opening comments were given by the following officials:
It's a pleasure to be here with you today as we continue to work toward improving the safety of our nation's food supply.
I'd like to acknowledge the presence today of members of the President's Council on Food Safety or their representatives. First my fellow Council co-chairs Secretary of HHS, Donna Shalala, who will be joining us shortly, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Josh Gotbaum from the Office of Management and Budget, and Susan Wayland from EPA as well as staff from the Vice President's Office and the Domestic Policy Council.
What the President and Vice President started nearly seven years ago is getting results. We are seeing decreases in microbial contamination of meat products, decreases in the reported incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis, and overall higher level of attention being placed on food safety on many fronts.
But there is much more to be done. We must continue to make improvements if we are going to make our food supply as safe as possible. Even though our food is among the safest in the world, we must continue to push to find better ways of protecting the public from foodborne hazards.
An important part of any advancement will be to make sure our federal food safety system is adequately funded. Therefore, for continued improvement, we must support the President's Food Safety Initiative. The Initiative provides needed dollars for research, inspection, surveillance, and education. Over the last two years, congressional support for the President's Initiative has resulted in substantial funding increases and measurable improvements in our ability to protect the public from foodborne illnesses. This is true for both the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. Therefore, Congress needs to fully support the President's fiscal year 2000 Initiative request of $72 million.
Of particular interest to me is the science associated with this endeavor. Access to scientific knowledge generated through a robust program of research is critical to the realization of significant reductions in foodborne illnesses. In particular, development of effective strategies to prevent food contamination, supported through risk assessment, requires a more complete understanding of food safety hazards along all points of the farm to table pathway.
That is why the President called on the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to establish the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research. The Institute will work to partner with the private sector and universities and will serve as the primary coordinating mechanism within the federal government for food safety research. In addition to research conducted by USDA, HHS, and EPA, the Institute will reach out to agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Departments of Energy and Defense to take advantage of their fine work, for example in bio-sensors or material science, to improve the safety of our food supply.
I am pleased to announce that steps are being taken now to begin a search to recruit nationally recognized expert in food safety to serve as the Institute's executive director. In addition, other staff and resources are being assembled and we hope to get the Institute up and running within the next few months.
An important tool to the future success of the Institute will be a good database to track and monitor food safety research. Establishing such a database will be one of the Institute's first tasks. To assist the Institute, the National Science and Technology Council will release next week an initial assessment of the food safety research as it relates to microbial hazards. This assessment cuts across all HHS, USDA, and EPA research activities and identifies areas where we would benefit from future investment.
The job before you today is an important one. If we are going to make significant advances we need to work together as never before at the federal, state and local levels. We must listen carefully to consumers and to industry. We need to optimize our allocation of resources based on risk and we need to work within a complex and at times less than intuitive statutory structure and jurisdictional boundaries.
The strategic plan you are helping the Council develop will serve as the roadmap for federal food safety efforts--how we interface with all components of a truly national food safety system. It will also provide the foundation for linking resource allocations to risk.
Our job is to find ways to work as effectively as possible within the existing constraint of the food safety system and move aggressively to get rid of those constraints that limit our ability to protect the public's health.
I'd now like to introduce my fellow Council Co-Chair, Secretary Dan Glickman.
Dan Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, (Co-Chair, President's Council on Food Safety)
Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you from across the spectrum -- industry, state, and local government, consumer groups, academia, public health advocates -- for joining us today. Only a partnership among all the interests represented here will make the President's Food Safety Initiative a success. I'll try to be brief, because today is about dialogue and discussion and not about speechmaking. But I do want to make a few points.
You know, concern about food safety is as old as humankind. Eve, of course, was wary of that first apple. And the 17th Century British satirist Johnathan Swift observed: "It was a bold man that first ate the oyster."
In the United States, of course, we've helped quell people's anxieties with a strong food safety system, which enjoys the confidence of the American people. I think it's telling that, even today in an era where the momentum is definitely toward a less intrusive federal government, food safety controls and regulations remain as strong as ever.
One of the major barriers we're facing right now stems from the Europeans' lack of similar confidence in their regulators. Which has led to an expensive transatlantic dispute over the export of beef from hormone-treated cattle.
I might add that not only do consumers have confidence in us, the President does too. Not enough can be said about the extraordinary leadership by the President and the Vice President on food safety issues. The Administration's FY 2000 budget request for the Food Safety Initiative is $107 million, including a one-third increase for USDA food safety research. Congress is now considering that request, and I urge them to fully fund the Initiative.
We have a good story to tell. Federal agencies, working together, have adopted an effective and comprehensive farm-to-table approach to food safety. HACCP is working, and in six months all plants will be in compliance. We have better rapid response capabilities. And we have spread the word about safe food handling with an aggressive public information effort
One of the reasons for our success - and one reason for consumers' faith in us - is the independence of our regulators. At USDA, we have taken extra care to ensure that our regulators maintain an arms length relationship from the people responsible for marketing American agricultural goods. A few years ago, in a very important step, we created a
separate food safety mission area, breaking it off from our marketing function.
At the same time, food safety is still a multi-agency objective at USDA. The Agricultural Marketing Service, for example, runs sanitation and grading programs for many food commodities.
USDA's research arm is very much involved. Just to give you a few examples…our scientists in Ames, Iowa have developed a new detector that can spot microscopic fecal contamination on meat and alert packers to the problem in a matter of seconds. And researchers in our Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania facility have found that pathogens which have been previously exposed to low temperatures develop a heat-resistance that makes them harder to kill.
USDA, together with its partners in the federal government, has clearly earned the confidence of the American people on food safety. But we can never rest on our laurels, especially since we're often dealing with life-and-death matters for our citizens. The Executive Order issued by the President last summer outlined the steps we must take to address food safety more thoroughly. We know that we have a lot of work still to do. Not the least of which is for this Council to deliver a strong strategic plan to the President one year from now.
But we'll only do that if we work in partnership with one another. Unity - speaking with a common voice - is critical. We've done it by creating a blueprint for a Joint Institute for Food Safety Research. We'll do it by meeting the enormous challenge of developing a unified food safety budget.
Working together -- the federal government and all of its partners -- I believe we will head into the next century not just meeting our own very ambitious food safety standards --- but setting a new benchmark that will make American food the safest the world has ever eaten. Thank you very much.
Now, I am delighted to pass the baton to my Cabinet colleague and fellow co-chair of the President's Council on Food safety…Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala.
Donna Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, (Co-Chair, President's Council on Food Safety):
As you can see, the Clinton Administration has a strong food safety team -- HHS, USDA, EPA, and the White House. And there's a reason for that: it's that even before the Women's World Cup, we understood the value of working together.
I have to be a little partisan, though, and give special thanks to Dr. Jane Henney, our Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Now, some people forget the first part of her title, but, thankfully, she doesn't. We're fortunate to have Dr. Henney as the senior food safety official in HHS. She's spearheading our efforts to craft science-based solutions for the Clinton Administration in our continuing drive to make our food supply even safer.
As I was preparing to join you today I recalled a story I heard once about a speaker at a conference not unlike this one today. After a rather lengthy presentation on the history of food safety policy, he paused to observe that it's now more important than ever given that more of us understand that "food is an important part of a balanced diet."
Well, I hope it goes without saying that I don't plan to drop any bombshells like that today. Instead, I want to take a few moments this morning to tell you that I'm convinced this meeting provides us with an opportunity that's unique as it is important.
It's an opportunity to take a hard look at how changes in America's eating habits can impact the safety of America's food supply. It's an opportunity to consider what it means that more of us than ever before are not only eating foods that are imported, but foods prepared outside the home. It's an opportunity for us to consider the fact that -- today--nearly a quarter of all Americans are considered "at risk" from exposure to foodborne pathogens. But, even more than this, our meeting today provides us with a critical opportunity to explore how the food safety system that served this nation so well in the past, can be reengineered to meet America's needs in the future. That's what this strategic planning and budgeting process is really all about.
From our Administration's very first days, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, USDA, HHS, EPA --all of us-- have understood that even though America has the world's safest food supply, being better isn't good enough. That's what led to the President's Food Safety Initiative and the creation of the President's Food Safety Council.
As you know, for the first time ever, we have a structure in place that assures that every government agency involved with food safety works cooperatively to meet common goals. Let me give you one example. In the past, FSIS and FDA field staff were too often like ships passing each other in the night. Opportunities for collaboration were lost -- not because our people didn't want to work more closely together -- but because no one in a position of leadership had ever thought to promote it. Well, now that's changing.
FDA and FSIS staff are exchanging more information than ever before in the field. Staffers on the ground aren't just telling us about contamination, mislabeling or unhealthy conditions - now they're telling each other. It is better government? I think it is. But it's something, else, too: it's better public health. And we're going to need to see a lot more of both in the years ahead.
Now, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to bragging about my department's work on behalf of food safety. For instance, I'm proud of the fact that, at CDC, we launched a collaborative interagency initiative called PulseNet. It's a national public health laboratory network that fingerprints bacteria so we can do an even better job detecting foodborne illness. And, ask anyone on my staff, and they'll tell you how proud we are that it was FDA that developed a technique that can directly detect and quantify E. coli within 30 minutes. It used to take as long as two days.
But, I have to tell you: proud as we are of these kinds of achievements -- and as much as it says about our commitment to a science-based approach to food safety -- we know the federal government is still only one spoke in a very large wheel. Because its also going to take state government, local government, industry, consumers, public health professionals -- all of us working together as partners -- to build a 21st Century food safety system.
For example, a food safety system that not only has the ability to conduct inspections at our own borders, but one that can ensure imported foods meet the same level of protection as US products. That's something FDA is working on right now. Approaches like those don't require the invention of new bureaucracies, but they do demand a new integration of the systems we have now. And that's why your work today is so important.
As HHS Secretary, I've seen what a sound, science-based prevention initiative can achieve, and I know we need to see more of them. For instance, over one two-year period alone, we saw a 40 percent reduction in group B streptococcal cases in communities that implemented CDC guidelines. But, in years to come, the safety of America's food supply will depend less on the choices federal policymakers make on their own, and more on the choices all of us make together.
The folk singer, Pete Seeger, once asked the question: "Do you know the difference between education and experience?" "Education", he said, "is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't." Well, over the years what our experience has taught us is that, when it comes to food safety, there isn't one single solution. Instead, there are a series of sensible approaches. And, when these approaches are undertaken, in concert, they make the world's best food safety system even better.
Thank you.
Susan Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Donna. Good morning. I am delighted to be here. Food safety is very important to EPA, and that's why we are actively participating in the Food Safety Initiative and the President's Council. On behalf of EPA, I want to thank all of you for being here today and helping us fulfill our charge from President Clinton to create a seamless food safety system.
Even though we have made great strides in ensuring that America has the safest food supply in the world, we know that our food safety system could be even stronger. Indeed, we know that it needs to be stronger. And the task before us is to develop a thoughtful five-year strategic plan for a new, better food safety system. The new system must cover all the ground that it needs to cover to be truly a comprehensive and, therefore, protective system.
So in developing the strategic plan, I urge you to keep in mind that when we talk about food safety we are also talking about chemical contamination and pesticides -- the components with which EPA is most involved. The scope of the Council's work was specifically broadened last year to recognize the importance of chemicals in evaluating how to improve food safety.
Let me tell you briefly about some of EPA responsibilities in keeping our food supply safe. Probably our most well known work in food safety is our regulation of pesticides. EPA registers, or licenses, all pesticide products used in this country, and establishes tolerances, which are maximum limits for pesticide residues allowed on food commodities and animal feed. And in addition to the traditional agricultural crop protection chemicals that most people associate with pesticides, EPA regulates biopesticides, including products of genetic engineering. EPA also licenses in regard to efficacy and safety chemicals used to kill or prevent microbial contamination. I am talking about the disinfectants and sanitizers that are used in food processing plants, restaurants and in home kitchens.
Our pesticide regulatory program is improving every day. For the past three years, we have poured our energies into the implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. This landmark law gives everyone added protections from pesticides, but it is especially focused on protecting infants and children. This law has changed the way we do business. It's raised the bar for protection, and has focused both the agriculture community and public health and consumer communities on pesticide and food issues as never before. And it has been a tremendous challenge --- there are very important science and policy issues we are grappling with, including how to improve the science and improve risk assessments for children, how to apply additional safety factors to protect kids, and how to add up non-food exposures - like exposure in the home, through drinking water, and so forth -- in deciding what residue limits are safe for food.
But despite the challenges, the good news is that we are getting the job done. As more of the law's new provisions take effect, we will be seeing the riskiest pesticides replaced by safer alternatives. I think that is something we can all feel good about.
And in the critical area of protecting our water, EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing standards for drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Even though the drinking water program is not a part of the strategic plan, the protection afforded under the Drinking Water law will carry over to the use of water in food production and food processing.
And under the Clean Water Act, EPA establishes criteria to be used by the states and tribes as guidance to develop water quality standards for surface waters to protect fish, shellfish and wildlife, as well as to protect human health. We also work with the states on fish consumption advisories for consumers of local fish.
So, as you can see, EPA is vitally involved in food safety, and food safety is highly dependent on the work we do. That's why EPA is a full partner -- with HHS, USDA and other Council members -- in devising the food safety strategic plan. And I urge you, as you participate with us in developing this plan for food safety, please think broadly about the many aspects of this issue, and how it, all the moving parts, can work even more effectively in the future.
A seamless food safety system means weaving together the responsibilities of Government at all levels; it means including the critical roles of industry, and consumer, and farmers and nutritionists and health care professionals. It is up to all of us to work together for a full and comprehensive food safety system that ensures public health, and ensures the public's confidence in our food system.
Again, I would like to thank you for your interest in this important work, and assure you that EPA is interested in your comments. We are still at the beginning of the process of devising the strategic plan, and we look forward to working with you all along the way.
Thank you.
The co-chairs of the Council's Strategic Planning Task Force, Dr. Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety, Department of Agriculture and Dr. Jane Henney, Commissioner , Food and Drug Administration welcomed the participants and outlined the purpose of the meeting. The participants were invited to comment on the five draft food safety goals and the accompanying draft objectives that create the framework for the food safety strategic plan. During the July 15 meeting, participants also completed a questionnaire intended to focus on the overall plan and provide general feedback to the participants on the sense of the overall group. Most importantly, the meeting agenda was structured as interactive breakout sessions with roundtable discussions organized around each of the five goals. Morning and afternoon sessions were held which allowed stakeholders to participate in two breakouts. This format provided the maximum opportunity to provide input on the draft goals and objectives. At the end of the day, all participants came back together in a plenary session to permit any final comments on any aspect of the plan and to share any significant concerns.
Most of the respondents to the questionnaire taken at the beginning of the meeting agreed with the draft Overarching Goal: To protect public health by significantly reducing foodborne illnesses through science-based and coordinated regulation, inspection, enforcement, research, and education programs, and that it is stated clearly.
At the breakout sessions the stakeholders were asked to answer four questions with respect to goals 1 through 5.
Q1: Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
Q2: Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
Q3: To achieve the goal, what is the most important action the federal government can take?
Q4: What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
Each breakout and "table top" discussion was facilitated and comments recorded. The following is a summary of the comments received by participants during the daylong public meeting. Comments are organized by each goal.
Goal #1: Ensure the development and use of a comprehensive scientific and technological food safety knowledge base to support prevention, regulation, inspection, surveillance, and education programs.
Objectives:
Q1. Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
In general, "this goal is related to providing the science-base that is needed to achieve the other four goals. It is intended to include scientific activities of both a research and a non-research nature, and the dissemination of that knowledge to the people that need it." General recommendations by participants to the goal statement were to simplify the language. Participants suggested edits including the need to address "research" and new language that more strongly emphasizes communicating the science-base and developmental plan to stakeholders. Specific concerns expressed by participants were the need for stronger coordination amongst federal agencies; the need for development of a mechanism to adequately capture ongoing efforts or information already generated by industry/others, and the requirement for a method to monitor progress to the goal. Many interpreted that placing Goal 1 at the beginning inadvertently sends the message that it must be achieved (a "prerequisite") before other strategic planning goals are undertaken; instead, it should be supplemental to the other goals.
Q2. Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
In response to several objectives stated under Goal 1, many commented that they should be reworded and simply organized to reflect: (1) the need to establish priorities (i.e., What's the problem?); (2) support to address the priorities; (3) coordinated activities in addressing the priorities (i.e., use resources wisely; have method for monitoring progress; provide accountability); and (4) application of information (i.e., actually use the information for something). To achieve this structure, many suggested retaining objectives 1 and 6, and converting 2-5 and 7 (essentially the National Academy of Sciences risk analysis paradigm) to action items. A new, specific objective on dissemination of knowledge was suggested, as there were concerns about the accessibility of data. A suggestion was to develop or foster a "Center of Excellence" at academic institutions to provide targeted research programs linked to priority needs of food safety regulators. The fostering of risk assessment was encouraged. Clarification of the role, development, and concept of the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research (JIFSR) for all the above activities was a concern.
Q3. To achieve the goal, what is the most important action the federal government can take?
Participants' comments recommended the need for coordination and communication for successful implementation of the objectives; research efforts should be a goal (priority)-oriented, impetus of research efforts. Research should be transparent, accountable to the public, and priorities based on stakeholder input.
Q4. What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
Discussion centered on perceived barriers to successful research. For example, there is a lack of flexibility in resource allocation particularly when the resources must be spent within a given time limit. This limitation also leads to excessive focus on specific research areas, with the perception being that research needs are a moving target with no endpoint. Also, differences in agencies' missions inhibit effective research resource allocation and coordination, with a fundamental lack of ability by these agencies to establish priorities and effectively address them. Additional constraints identified were a lack of funding opportunities to attract students and keep them, and the need to find out what research industry has done/is doing. It was envisioned that JIFSR would play a role in removing these barriers.
Goal 2: Improving the effectiveness of surveillance, outbreak investigations, and response
Objectives:
Q1: Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
The goal was thought to be reasonably clear. In general, the precise meaning of surveillance needs some further clarification, to include foodborne infections, diseases caused by other foodborne hazards, and monitoring of food at critical pre-harvest and post-harvest points. The purposes of surveillance can also be clarified; they include measuring the burden of specific diseases, the effectiveness of prevention measures, and to detect outbreaks. This means that disease surveillance or hazard monitoring needs to be linked to specific actions or decisions. The purposes of outbreak investigations can include determining the cause and source of the outbreak, to control it, and to generate information that leads to more effective long term prevention measures. It is suggested that we more clearly define the effectiveness of surveillance so that it is targeted and efficient. Using plain English and clearly defining measurable objectives were recurrent themes in the public comments.
Q2: Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
A number of comments were made that the objectives were too general and non-specific. Several participants noted the need to tie surveillance and outbreak investigations explicitly to research that identifies the specific risks, and to development of prevention measures. Some participants suggested developing this linkage as a specific new objective, so that prevention is promoted as a direct consequence of better surveillance and outbreak investigations. Because many cases of foodborne disease occur as sporadic cases, not linked to obvious outbreaks, focusing one objective on more detailed investigation of sporadic cases was also suggested. The need to enlist physicians and other health care providers so that the appropriate diagnostic tests are ordered was described as a critical element of the objective of enhancing surveillance. Effective surveillance requires resources at all levels. The benefits of surveillance and of outbreak investigation are benefits to society at large, and the costs are supported as a part of what government provides. There is a current structure for reporting and disseminating surveillance information that depends critically on scarce local and State public health department resources. For the long term, a vision was articulated of a web-based surveillance system with on-line data reporting, built-in outbreak detection algorithms, and appropriate summarization and rapid dissemination of the results, which could speed the cycle of reporting and response. Effective outbreak investigation and response also requires resources. The complex investigation can involve many stakeholders, who need to be involved. In the outbreak setting, the ability to get information from industry, and to share it with the appropriate public health authorities can be critical, but is constrained by the need to protect proprietary information. Participants emphasized that providing feedback about the results of an investigation, to the food safety research community, to industry, to the communities affected, the physicians, and the other partners could improve understanding, appreciation and support. If a component of assessment and evaluation is included in each objective, the lessons learned can be applied to improve the system.
Q3: To achieve the goal, what is the most important action the Federal government can take?
Participants commented that surveillance of illnesses that might be foodborne is a core public health function at local and state health departments. The capacity to do this is limited; a high priority should be given to defining the core capacity, to assessing what the states actually have in the way of capacity, and to building capacity at all levels. The tremendous promise of rapid web-based reporting contrasts with the limited resources actually available in many counties and states. In particular, making surveillance data available and meaningful at the local, state and national level was mentioned as important. In addition, comments included the need for articulating and improving standards for investigation of outbreaks, for conducting source tracing and for sharing appropriate information about outbreaks in a timely and coordinated fashion were mentioned. A need was expressed to address the barriers to exchanging critical information between regulatory or investigative agencies and industry during outbreak investigations, while protecting commercial and patient confidentiality.
Q4: What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
Concerns expressed included the importance of long term commitment on the part of the federal government, and for resources at all levels. These resources need to be used effectively and efficiently. There is a paradox inherent to improving surveillance, as better surveillance is likely to mean that sporadic disease will be better defined, and that a greater number of outbreaks will be detected and investigated. The results of sporadic disease studies and of the outbreak investigations will ultimately lead to better long term prevention, but paradoxically, an increase in sporadic cases reported and in the number of outbreaks detected will make things appear temporarily to be getting worse, though in fact they are getting better. While there is a great desire on the part of some to learn rapidly about outbreaks before the information is clear or the control measures are identified, there is also concern that premature notification can damage the public health investigative process itself, making it more difficult to identify the source correctly and accurately.
Goal 3: Identify and manage risks through protective standards, inspection, and enforcement from farm to table.
Objectives:
Q1: Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
The majority of the breakout session participants felt that the goal was appropriate; however, they did not feel that the goal was clear. They made the suggestions that are described below.
The participants recommended that the concept of identifying and managing risks needed to be clarified. For example, some workgroups suggested that the term "identify and manage" could be separated and used to form two separate goals. One goal would focus on identifying risks while the second goal would focus on managing risks. In the alternative, some participants considered the concept of risk assessment as implicit and that the goal would be clearer if the concept of risk assessment was explicit. Moreover, some participants requested that the goal state the mechanisms that will be used to identify risk.
Participants discussed clarifying the words "protective" and "standard". Some felt that the concept of prevention was missing from the goal and that the word "preventive" is clearer than the word "protective". In addition, some participants recommended that any preventive measures or standards should be science based. Some participants had concerns that the term "standard" is open to multiple interpretations or that it is synonymous with the word "regulation". It was the opinion of some that the term "farm to table" should also be clarified so that it is all inclusive.
Suggestions were made that the goal should state that it covers domestic and imported foods. Other participants pointed out that the goal was missing educational and outreach components and the concept of voluntary compliance needed to be included.
Q2: Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
The participants emphasized that the goal needed to be clarified or new objectives need to be added so that the goal can be achieved. Some of the suggestions were:
Objective 1: The term priority needed to be clarified; the objective needed to separate the concept of priority and science based; the word risk should be substituted for the word priority or in the alternative the word risk should be added; the objective need to discuss how risks will be determined and how priorities will be set; and the objective needs to extend beyond processors and providers.
Objective 2: The objective should start with "identify and/or develop"; the objective should focus on implementation; the objective should state who is responsible for achieving this objective; and the objective should cover domestic and imported foods.
Objective 3: Participants expressed the view that the word risk should be substituted for the word priority and the concept of enforcement should be included.
Objective 4: The objective should recognize the need for statutory changes; the concepts of uniformity and equivalency should be included; and the concept of transparency should be integrated into the objective.
Objective 5: The participants recommended that this objective should be an action item.
Q3: To achieve the goal what is the most important action the federal government can take?
The breakout session participants responded thoughtfully to this question with the following suggestions: implement preventive techniques and controls; identify and receive needed resources; identify and prioritize risks; delegate authority over food safety to one high level official; improve communications between government entities and between government entities and their stakeholders; make animal welfare improvements that will lead to a decrease in pathogens; coordinate on equivalency standards at the federal level; achieve uniformity in standards; delegate a lead federal agency for each area/program; evaluate what has been accomplished and set pertinent priorities for the future; implement guidance and regulations on a real time basis; rely on industry's evolving science base and build flexibility into the regulatory process; base all regulatory decisions on science; ensure that science and the statutes are in sync; inventory existing laws and guidance and eliminate gaps and barriers; train and certify inspectors; provide incentives to industry; mandate food safety measures at the producer level; and ensure that any food safety system is global in scope.
Q4: What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
The breakout session participants expressed the following concerns: that politics will play more of a role in priority setting than science; that existing resources are inadequate to achieve the goal; that it takes too much time to implement regulatory fixes; that we will encounter political and institutional resistance to modernizing statutes and regulations; that there is not enough communication between the federal government and the states; that there are multiple agencies with inconsistent policies; that there is no goal of risk free food; that the retail establishments are not a part of the process; that once food leaves the processor there is a lack of control; that it is difficult to build food safety monitoring into the system; that there will continue to be turf battles between government agencies and the Congress; that there is no accountability for the success of the plan; that there is no mechanism to measure outcomes; that there is a lack of well trained certified inspectors and enforcement staff; that it is difficult to balance the roles of regulating and promoting industry; that we still don't know why the US has so many food borne illnesses; that the process will not be participatory; and that the process will stop and start in a way that undermines its prospects for success.
Goal 4: Ensure that all people who come into contact with food from farm to table are fully informed of the risks and measures to prevent or reduce foodborne illnesses.
Objectives:
Q1: Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
A few participants commented that the goal needs to be clearer. They spent much time discussing the phrase "people who come into contact with food from farm to table". Attendees suggested a break down of the concept of "all people…" to the specific stakeholders in the farm to table continuum. These stakeholders have specific interests that require customized approaches.
Some participants noted that the words "fully informed" were unclear. Since the goal needs to do more than inform, they recommended using "fully educate". Several participants agreed that "ensure that all people are informed" is not achievable. Achievement of the goal should be measurable.
There was some discussion about whether the goal should focus only on educating the American people or should encompass educating the world as well.
Participants were concerned that the words "foodborne illness" were either unclear or not comprehensive. They suggested broadening "foodborne illnesses" to include other food safety hazards and risks. A few participants noted that the goal should touch on emerging issues such as organic food, irradiation, pesticides, and GMO’s to prepare/educate consumers to understand these issues. However, participants cautioned that too many messages could overwhelm the public and make communication efforts more difficult. It was unclear whether the goal included environmental hazards and long-term illnesses.
Q2: Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
Participants viewed Objective 1 as too broad and unclear. Some recommended that Objective 1 should read as, "Foster basic understanding about the methods of contamination from farm to table", while others suggested that the objective was unnecessary.
For Objective 2 they suggested that the language should be simplified. The government should enhance the public’s access to accurate information and inform them about how to access it. Objective 2 seems more passive while Objective 3 seems more proactive. Participants agreed that the government needs to develop better systems for distributing existing education materials.
Some commented that the words in Objective 4,"unduly alarmed", might imply that the information is "sanitized" before it’s given to the public. Participants suggested the following alternatives: (1) "Improve risk communication and information exchange with the public so that they are informed about foodborne illness incidences and how to respond appropriately" or (2) "Improve communication and provide information to the public so that they are informed about foodborne risks and illnesses in a manner that is complete and personally relevant."
Many recommended education efforts should be expanded to include health professionals, educators, growers, and media. Participants also emphasized the need to build partnerships with professional associations and industry and to coordinate different entities responsible for food safety issues.
Several participants agreed that the strategy needed an objective to measure and evaluate education initiatives and to conduct educational research. To facilitate implementation and evaluation of effectiveness, objectives dealing with outbreak-related situations should be differentiated from long-term choices to ensure food safety.
Q3: To achieve the goal, what is the most important action the federal government can take?
A few participants noted that federal, state, and local agencies need to share information among themselves in a timely manner. Many participants strongly stated that these agencies should provide consistent messages and coordinate educational efforts. Since the audience needs consistent messages from any food safety information source, government agencies should train and work with the media to convey accurate messages. In addition, the government should reach out to influencers, such as health care providers, teachers (especially those at primary schools), and local health departments. (For example, reach out through Adopt-a-School Programs and Boy Scouts.)
Participants recommended that the government should identify and prioritize the most important audiences for the specific education effort. Then, it should conduct research on what information those audiences need to achieve the greatest change in behavior. Next, the government should develop how to reach these audiences.
Participants suggested methods to reach the public such as: (1) comprehensive food safety education, (2) a social marketing campaign, and (3) a central location that provides information about food safety recalls by phone (ex. 1-800-recalls), fax, or website (www.recalls.gov). Most participants agreed that the government needs to invest in state-of the-art technology to deliver information to the public.
Q4: What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
Participants suggested by far the main concern was the need for funding and lack of resources. Because of this concern, they encouraged government to become creative with acquiring funding from non-governmental sources. This relates to the ability to sustain commitment to the goal. To increase its credibility with the public, the government needs to maintain its sincerity. The government needs to support and justify recommendations based on sound science.
Participants were concerned that messages don’t always reach the public or the right target audiences. Some suggested a multicultural, multilingual clearinghouse for information.
Goal 5: Create a national and to the extent possible an international seamless food safety system from farm to table.
Objectives:
Q1. Is the goal statement clear and appropriate?
The participants focused on the term "seamless". There was some interest in replacing the term with such phrases as "coordinated and integrated", "coordinated and cooperative", and "well coordinated and cooperative". This discussion reflected the view that the current system has different components, and that these components need to work well together, not that they loose their separate identities. Alternatively, others believed that "seamless" was an appropriate term. Also, the discussion of "seamless" included the recognition that there are gaps in the current system, and that these gaps need to be eliminated. In addition, there was discussion of current overlaps and inconsistencies, and they too needed to be eliminated.
The public focused on the term "international", and offered a variety of ideas. They included creating a separate goal for international issues. Others thought that Goal 5 should concentrate its international focus solely on import related matters, i.e. taking a narrow perspective. In the alternative, others viewed food safety as a global matter, and that it was important that Goal 5 not be limited to import issues. Also, there was discussion of the need for Goal 5 to address equivalence determinations, Codex, and harmonization.
Some participants believed that a single food safety agency would make achieving a seamless food safety system more likely. However, others believed that a single agency was not needed to achieve Goal 5.
Q2. Are the listed objectives sufficient to achieve the goal?
The public comments focused primarily on either improving the current objectives or on establishing additional objectives.
The comments on objective 1 included determining if the current statutes are rational and integrated, rather than complete. Some viewed the current statutes as outdated and inconsistent, and believed that the statutory assessment needed to be carried out at all levels, including the state level. Also, objective 1 should be expanded to included resources, not just laws.
A number of participants suggested combining objectives, i.e. combine objective 1 and 2 or combine objectives 2 and 3. A number of participants stated that objective 4 needed to address allocating resources on the basis of risk. Also, some believed that objective 5 needed clarification to include focusing on such issues as: equivalence, standards, harmonization, Codex, and trade.
Some participants believed that the Goal 5 objectives needed to be expanded to include: prevention; performance measures and accountability; Federal government technical expertise; sharing information; and developing a science based food safety system.
Q3: To achieve the goal, what is the most important action the Federal Government can take?
The public identified a number of separate ideas in response to this question. While there was no single agreed upon response, a number of themes did emerge. They included an emphasis on consistency of actions as applied to statutory authority; standards; training; and inspection of product. Also, there was an interest in identifying risks in food and shifting resources based on the greatest risks. Three other themes emerged: focus on prevention; enhance the partnership with the states; and strengthen communication efforts.
Q4: What concerns do you have about achieving the goal?
The participants voiced a number of concerns. The ideas presented could be categorized into five major headings. One, participants perceived that Federal agencies may be problematic in achieving the goal because they tend to view this goal from their current perspective, i.e. they are not thinking "out of the box". Also, Federal agencies may not work cooperatively to achieve this goal because they are wedded to their current areas of responsibility. Two, timing is of concern. Participants cautioned that if this matter is not attended to immediately positive momentum will be lost, and it will be difficult to sustain the effort over the long haul. Three, there was a sense that state and local governments are being excluded from this effort, and this is manifest by a lack of proper information sharing between Federal, state and local authorities. Four, the emphasis on international aspects of the goal will deter from domestic improvements. Five, the goal fails to either address at all, or adequately address: ethics; accountability; conflicts of interest; transparency; and the lack of sufficient Federal technical expertise.
PLENARY SESSION:
The purpose of the closing plenary session was to provide a summary of the day's discussions to all participants. The "open mike", public comment segment gave an additional opportunity for participants to highlight specific areas of concern.
Dr. Jane Henney and Dr. Catherine Woteki chaired the plenary session. Both were very appreciative of all the meeting participants' contributions and comments during the entire day.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
During an open comment segment participants offered comments representing their constituents' opinion of the proposed Food Safety Strategic Plan.
Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI):
Caroline Smith de Waal felt the meeting was very good and cathartic. She considered Goal 5 improved but again it doesn't go far enough. She expressed the view that the Strategic Plan was not far-reaching or far thinking enough. The Plan looks like a "rehash "of past issues with nothing new to offer.
CSPI recommendations included making sure that the goals are responsive to the National Academy of Science (NAS) Report. The Task Force should consider taking a step back and review the NAS Report. She recommended using an analysis of identifying risks, applying resources, and measuring outcomes. The Plan in its current form suggests that a committee of bureaucrats wrote it. The document needs basic restructuring.
The Humane Society:
Mary Finelli expressed a concern that the draft Plan has very little about the food production stage. In her view the plan omits on the farm food safety measures particularly with respect to animal production, e.g., overcrowding. She suggested including on-farm production, mandatory safeguards on the farm, and implementation of monitoring in these areas.
Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL):
Lynn Bradley commented that NFSS is another process underway and doesn't want that effort to get lost. She also suggested making specific assignments as to who will be responsible for working on specific aspects of the Plan and to be sure to include how much these activities will cost.
Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP):
Heather Klinkhammer emphasized the importance of doing assessments before going forward with the Plan. She supported labeling with country of origin to facilitate tracebacks and accountability. She also pointed out that assessment of salient capabilities of industry is missing from the Plan. The point was made that if you don't have these capabilities then it is meaningless.
United Poultry Concerns:
Comments from Karen Davis expressed the view that the real action is at the farm level. She stressed that animals are not treated well causing tremendous stress, which compromises their immune system and subsequently increases the animals susceptibility to pathogens. The point was also made when you have data, act on it.
Egg Nutrition Center:
Jill Snoden acknowledged appreciation of the Task Force's efforts on the Strategic Plan. Their view is that the bottom line is food production, processing, and preparation, e.g., surveillance for animal production not just for humans. These areas need guidance, good management practices, with a voluntary bottom up as well as top down approach.
Both Dr Woteki and Dr. Henney thanked all the participants for their contributions to the further development of the Food Safety Strategic Plan. They encouraged participants to submit written comments on the strategic plan to the appropriate docket offices listed in the Federal Register Notice announcing the public meeting. The meeting was adjourned.
9/10/1999 12:57:05 PM
