WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration food safety bill sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., finally moved forward Oct. 22 with a hearing in the Senate, while a key food lobbyist predicted President Obama would sign a food safety bill in early 2010.
Outbreaks of foodborne illness from FDA-regulated spinach, peppers, peanut butter and pistachios have created momentum for a modernization of FDA's rules and regulations. The House passed an FDA food safety bill by a wide margin earlier this year. Durbin introduced a somewhat different companion measure, but the Senate HELP Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FDA, has been too overwhelmed with the health care bill to even hold a hearing until Oct. 22.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who took an interest in food safety when he chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an opening statement, "It is time -- it is past time -- to modernize U.S. food safety laws and regulations," but he promised only that Congress would pass food safety reform "in this Congress," which ends in 2010.
But Scott Faber, a vice president for federal affairs at GMA, the association of food, beverage and consumer product companies, said he thinks a food safety bill "will be signed by the president in early 2010."
Faber, whose member companies have supported the bill in hopes it will restore consumer confidence in certain foods, said there is no significant opposition to a food safety bill.
ADVERTISEMENT
FDA authority
There are, however, differences between the House and Senate bills, and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg testified that the Obama administration thinks the Senate bill needs to be strengthened and provide a predictable source of funding to improve FDA food safety.
Under current law, FDA has authority to address food safety problems when they arise, but it does not have the power to force food producers to take measures to prevent food borne illness. Hamburg said the Durbin bill would provide FDA with the legal authority to require facilities to conduct hazard analysis and implement a preventive controls plan. It also gives FDA authority to require foreign suppliers to verify that food is not adulterated and provides authority to keep food from companies that do not verify out of the country. But Hamburg said the bill does not provide FDA with explicit authority to access food records during routine inspections or give the agency authority to share the information with state and local governments during investigations.
Hamburg praised the bill for requiring more frequent inspections, particularly of plants with records of risk, but noted that it does not include a new source of funds to carry out those inspections.
Senate concerns
Harkin, who also sits on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, told Hamburg he would be asking her for "some pretty hard figures as to what (the bill) would require in terms of appropriations" because he does not want to pass a bill and not provide the agency resources to fulfill its new responsibilities. Harkin did not mention the registration fees, but a spokesman said that did not necessarily mean he opposes new fees. Faber said the food industry is willing to pay fees, but GMA would prefer that they be devoted to science, prevention and detection rather than inspections.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said he was worried that the bill would apply to farmers who sell produce at roadside stands, but Hamburg said it would only apply to food entering interstate commerce.
The treatment of small producers still may be an issue as the debate progresses. United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel, whose members have lost millions of dollars from the loss of consumer confidence in vegetables and want consistent national standards to reassure consumers, urged the committee to reject calls to "water down" requirements for small and organic farms. Stenzel said "every consumer's health is just as important whether purchasing vegetables at a farmer' market or a grocery store."
