Major food importers and consumer advocates generally praised the new rules, but the advocates also said they worried the rules might give the companies too much discretion about whether to conduct on-site inspections of the places where the food is grown and processed. They said such inspections must be mandated.
The law itself was grappling, in part, with problems that have grown out of an increasingly globalized food supply. About 15 percent of food that Americans eat comes from abroad, more than double the amount just 10 years ago, including nearly two-thirds of fresh fruits and vegetables. And the safety of the food supply — foreign and domestic — is a critical public health issue. One in every six Americans becomes ill from eating contaminated food each year, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, F.D.A. commissioner, estimated. About 130,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.
The F.D.A. has tried to keep tabs on imports, but, in reality, manages to inspect only 1 to 2 percent of all imports at American ports and borders.
The new rules would subject imported foods to the same safety standards as food produced domestically and require companies importing the food to make sure it meets those standards. American companies would have to prove that their foreign suppliers had controls in place with audits of the foreign facilities, food tests, and reviews of records, among other methods. The companies would also have to keep records on foreign suppliers. They would be allowed to hire outside auditors to make on-site inspections — if such inspections were ultimately required. The auditors would be vetted in a process approved by the F.D.A.
Consumer advocates said that the test would be whether importers were required to conduct such on-site audits, or whether that was left to the companies’ discretion, as one option proposed in the draft rules would allow. If that option becomes final it would effectively allow the industry to police itself, advocates said.
“Without more clarity, this could end up as a paper exercise,” said Erik Olson, head of food programs at the Pew Charitable Trusts. He added, however, that the rules were “an important improvement over the weak current import system.”
Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the F.D.A., said the different options simply reflected an effort to be flexible regarding a very complex food supply. “We envision circumstances in which it would be required to have an on-site audit,” he said. “We are trying to — with these two different options — flesh out different ways of getting there.”
These are the last major rules needed to put into effect the Food Safety Modernization Act, a law passed by Congress in 2010 that was the first significant update of the agency’s food safety authority in 70 years. The Obama administration has been criticized for taking more than two years to propose the rules; some complained that the White House delayed acting to avoid Republican attacks, at the cost of public safety.
Some of the biggest importers, like Walmart and Cargill, praised the proposed rules and said they already do much of what they would be required to do to avoid food outbreaks that could damage their global brands.
“What we’re really looking for is a level playing field here,” said Michael Robach, vice president for food safety at Cargill. He said the company was still studying the rules to determine if it needed to make any changes.
Consumer groups said that outbreaks had persisted under the current system, and noted that a significant share of imports were brought to the United States by smaller companies.
The new rules on imports would cost $400 million to $500 million, Mr. Taylor said. The money reflects new costs, because, in the past, no one was legally accountable for ensuring safe food production before the food arrived in the United States.
Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/health/fda-proposes-rules-to-ensure-safety-of-imported-food.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
