Secretive USDA Decision-Making Process Harms Public Health
Has Been Ongoing For Years, DeLauro Demands Answers
WASHINGTON, DC—CongresswomanRosa DeLauro (D-CT) is asking the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for details about the department'suse of advisory committees. Today's Federal Register noticehighlights how USDA has dramatically reduced the number of in-person audits offoreign food safety systems without sufficient public notice. In November 2012,DeLauro askedthe department for answers about the process described in today's FederalRegister notice. To date that letter has gone unanswered.
"Alarmingly, it seems that FSIS fundamentally changed theprocess used to assess ongoing equivalency with our trade partners withoutpublishing a single public notice..." DeLauro wrote in a letter senttoday. "I am concerned that this process also highlights FSIS'indifference to the advisory committees…established by Congress to advise USDAon food safety policy."
DeLauro is a senior member of the subcommittee that fundsUSDA and is a champion of protecting the safety of our food supply.
The full letter is as follows:
January 25, 2013
Secretary Tom Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
I write today out of concernrelated to both the process used to ensure the safety of imported meat andpoultry products and, as disconcerting, the use of advisory committees by theUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and InspectionService (FSIS).
Earlier today, the departmentpublished a notice in the Federal Register (docket numberFSIS-2012-0049) related to the process used for ongoing verification ofequivalence of foreign food regulatory systems. As you know, this systemis imperative to ensuring that foreign regulatory systems provide the samelevel of protection of the public health as our domestic system. It helps makecertain that imported meat and poultry products are safe and wholesome, thusbuilding public trust.
Alarmingly, it seems that FSISfundamentally changed the process used to assess ongoing equivalency with ourtrade partners without publishing a single public notice in the FederalRegister on the revisions or seeking public comment on the proposedchanges. It appears that the agency has been implementing and refiningthese changes for several years. Yet, a July 2011 document from FSISentitled "Process for Evaluating the Equivalence of Foreign Meat, Poultry, andEgg Products Food Regulatory Systems" failed to explicitly note thesechanges. Pages 13 through 17 of that document discuss ‘equivalenceverification' but fail to clearly disclose that the agency was using theprocess announced in today's notice.
Further, these changes were notclearly disclosed nor discussed in the Fiscal Year 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013Congressional Justification documents that accompanied the Administration'sbudget request. The most to be found in the justification documents seemsto be the description of the on-site verification audits: "annual" (Fiscal Year2009, 2010, 2011) to "periodic" (Fiscal Year 2012, 2013) and a sentence on theSelf Reporting Tool in Fiscal Year 2013. As Chair of the HouseSubcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,and Related Agencies until January 2011 and an active member since then, Icannot overstate the value of those justifications as we make informeddecisions during the appropriations process.
I am concerned this process alsohighlights FSIS' indifference to the advisory committees, including theNational Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI),established by Congress to advise USDA on food safety policy. The agencyconsulted NACMPI in August 2008 on the process used to verifyequivalency. Based on public records of NACMPI meetings between August2008 and December 2012, FSIS failed to update the public and the committee onthe agency's changes to the process used to verify equivalence. As aNovember 2012 Food Safety News article noted, "the number of countriesaudited…each year has declined by more than 60 percent since 2008." Sucha dramatic change should surely warrant clear communication with the panel ofexternal experts that advise the department on meat and poultry inspection.
As distressing as this is on itsown, I am as concerned that this represents a disappointing newpractice. For many years, NACMPI met twice a year (1999-2006; 2008),providing input on food safety policies and receiving updates from the agency.The committee did not meet in 2009 and has only met once a year since 2010. In 2012, the sole meeting was held via an internet conference call.Furthermore, NACMPI was not consulted on the specifics of the department'sproposed poultry modernization rule, which represented a substantial change tothe agency's poultry inspection program, until the Committee's March 2012meeting, months after the proposal had been published for comment.
As such, I ask that you respondto the following questions by close of business on Monday, February 25, 2013. Ialso ask that you provide a detailed timeline of FSIS' work on equivalencyverification between the NACMPI meeting in August 2008 and today's FederalRegister notice.
· Will the agency publish a risk assessment on thechanges to the equivalence verification process announced in today's FederalRegister notice? If so, when will the risk assessment be published? If not,why is a risk assessment not warranted?
· Have the changes announced in the FederalRegister today affected the department's budget for the international foodsafety and inspection responsibilities of FSIS? If so, please detail thebudgetary impact.
· In what ways does FSIS utilize the expertise ofits external advisory committees to inform its policy decisions on contemporaryfood safety issues? When does the agency believe is the best time to seek inputfrom its advisory committees in its policy development process?
· NACMPI is managed by the FSIS Office ofOutreach, Employee Education and Training while the National Advisory Committeeon Microbiological Criteria for Foods is managed by the Office of Public HealthScience. Why are the two advisory committees overseen by differentoffices within FSIS? Specifically, why is NACMPI managed by the Office ofOutreach?
· How does FSIS ensure that both advisorycommittees are utilized as scientific resources to help inform departmentpolicy, not to learn of department policy after changes are made?
Thank you for your continuedleadership in protecting the public health. I look forward to ourcontinued work together to ensure the integrity of the equivalency process andthe appropriate utility of FSIS advisory committees.
Sincerely,
ROSA L. DeLAURO
Member of Congress
Cc: Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety