WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives is expected this week to take up a bill granting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration new powers over food safety, but House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said that he will lead a movement to stop the bill if provisions to give FDA some jurisdiction over livestock operations and grain farms are not taken out.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., developed the Food Safety and Enhancement Act of 2009 in reaction to the outbreaks of foodborne illness from tainted peanut butter and peppers imported from Mexico. Both products come under the jurisdiction of the FDA, which has responsibility for food safety for most products except meat, poultry and eggs, which come under the Agriculture Food and Safety and Inspection Service. But the bill was expanded beyond FDA's direct jurisdiction to include the storage of products that would become food. Some of those provisions were toned down in the Energy and Commerce Committee, but some farm and ranch groups complained that the bill is not clear enough on these points.
"Live animals are not 'food' until the point of processing, which is why this bill needs to clarify that the FDA does not have regulatory authority on our farms, ranches and feedlots," said Sam Ives, a veterinarian who testified at a July 16 House Agriculture Committee hearing on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
At that hearing, Peterson said he would meet July 17 with Peterson and Dingell to urge them to take out the provisions affecting livestock and grain operations. Peterson later told reporters he thinks Dingell is inclined to go along with the request. But Peterson said that if they don't remove the livestock and grain farms from the bill, he will hold a markup in his committee and report the bill out with a recommendation that the House not pass it. Peterson acknowledged that the House leadership did not refer the bill to his committee and that any markup he holds on it would not have any formal impact.
Bill's fans, foes
ADVERTISEMENT
Peterson said he had discussed the bill with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and that "she knows we're concerned and she wants to work it out."
But Peterson said he and the fruit and vegetable industry support the bill's provision for an increased role for FDA in assuring the safety of fruits and vegetables and stricter regulation of fruit and vegetable production. He added that he wants to strengthen the bill by adding provisions from a fruit and vegetable safety bill that Reps. Jim Costa, D-Calif., and Adam Putnam, R-Fla., have introduced.
Farm groups testified against the bill, charging that it gives FDA an unprecedented role on farms and causes farmers added expense with no assurance that it would increase food safety. Representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Organic Trade Council said the costs would be onerous for small farmers. But food safety advocate Carol Tucker Foreman testified in favor of the bill, saying it would give FDA the same authority the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service has to prevent illness from meat, poultry and eggs. But Foreman said she agreed with Peterson that FDA should not get any of FSIS's authority because FSIS generally has done a better job.
Robert Guenther of the United Fresh Produce Association, the fruit and vegetable group, said his association does not have a position on the bill. United Fresh supports the Costa-Putnam bill, which generally would apply California's and Florida's fruit and vegetable standards on production from other states and foreign countries.
Michael Taylor, a senior adviser to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg who served as FDA deputy commissioner for policy and FSIS administrator in the Clinton administration, praised most of the bill's provisions, but said FDA does not have the staff for the level of foreign inspections the bill proposes.
