Food Safety in the 111th Congress: H.R. 2749 and S. 510: R40443.

American consumers spend more than $1 trillion on food each year. The combined efforts of the food industry and government regulatory agencies often are credited with making the U.S. food supply among the safest in the world. Nonetheless, public health officials have estimated that each year in the United States, many millions of people become sick and thousands die from foodborne illnesses caused by any of a number of microbial pathogens and other contaminants. At issue is whether food safety agencies have the resources, authority, and structural organization to safeguard the public, and whether they use resources effectively. Also at issue is whether federal food safety laws, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then. In the 111^th Congress, comprehensive food safety legislation passed both the House (H.R. 2749) in July 2009 and the Senate (S. 510) in November 2010. Both the House and Senate bills mainly focus on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) food regulation rather than that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees most meat and poultry. The bills would generally expand or modify existing FDA authorities rather than create a new food safety structure or authorities. Future congressional action, however, remains uncertain. Following passage of the Senate-passed bill, it was reported that the House might block the Senate bill using a procedure known as "blueslipping," because the bill contains fees that might be subject to certain tax origination provisions. Food safety legislation is a response to a number of perceived problems with the current food safety system. For example, a growing consensus is that the FDA's current programs are not proactively designed to emphasize prevention, evaluate hazards, and focus inspection resources on areas of greatest risk to public health. Given its widely acknowledged funding and staffing constraints, and no explicit requirement on the frequency of inspections, the agency infrequently visits food manufacturing and other facilities to check sanitary and other conditions. Both the House and Senate bills (in different ways) would require food processing, manufacturing, shipping, and other regulated facilities to conduct an analysis of the most likely safety hazards and to design and implement risk-based controls to prevent them. The bills envision establishment of science-based "performance standards" for the most significant food contaminants. To help determine such risks and hazards, the bills propose improvement of foodborne illness surveillance systems. Both bills seek to increase frequency of inspections, tighten record-keeping requirements, extend more oversight to certain farms, and mandate product recalls if a firm fails to institute them voluntarily. Major portions of the bills are devoted to increasing the scrutiny of food imports, which account for a growing share of U.S. consumption; food import shipments would have to be accompanied by documentation that they can meet safety standards that are at least equivalent to U.S. standards. Such certifications might be provided by foreign governments or other so-called third parties accredited in advance. The House and Senate bills differ in how to accomplish these objectives. The bills have provisions for certifying or accrediting laboratories, including private laboratories, to conduct sampling and testing of food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]