House Committee On Energy And Commerce, Subcommittee On Oversight And Investigations: Can The FDA Assure The Safety And Security Of The Nation's Food

Statement

House Committee On Energy And Commerce, Subcommittee On Oversight And Investigations: Can The FDA Assure The Safety And Security Of The Nation's Food Supply? --Part 2

REP. STUPAK: (Sounds gavel.) Okay, this meeting will come to order.

Today we have a hearing on "Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply?"

Before I begin the hearing, I'd like to make a special announcement. As frequently happens with our Oversight and Investigation hearings, there's a change in policy that occurs on the eve of the hearing. This hearing is no exception.

For more than a year, Chairman Dingell and I have been calling -- (inaudible) -- FDA to end the practice of allowing meat which is treated with carbon monoxide from being sold in -- (inaudible) -- stores. Treating meat with carbon monoxide allows the meat to keep its freshly ground red color even though the meat may have spoiled.

I have a picture on the screen -- or I should have a picture on the screen here -- there's two packages of ground meat that were left out at room temperature for 27 hours. You can see the one which was treated with carbon monoxide looks fresh and red while the other meat has turned brown and quite nasty looking.

Late yesterday afternoon following inquiries and discussions with the committee staff, Safeway Foods sent us this letter announcing that they will discontinue the sale of fresh meat products packaged using carbon monoxide. I wish to thank Safeway, Inc. for their decision to stop selling fresh meat treated with carbon monoxide.

And with that, we will begin our hearing. Each member will have five minutes for an opening statement. I will begin.

Today we hold the second hearing by the subcommittee on whether FDA can assure the safety and security of the nation's food supply. Since the subcommittee began investigating this issue early this year, the news on the food safety front has grown progressively worse. A steady stream of food safety disasters followed the tragic deaths and illnesses caused by the spinach outbreak last fall. Fresh spinach packaged in California was contaminated with a deadly strain of E. coli bacteria. The spinach tragedies were quickly followed by an outbreak of life-threatening illnesses caused by salmonella in Peter Pan peanut butter. Both of these outbreaks were preventable.

Then there were the mysterious deaths of hundreds of cherished pets. We later learned that the American pet food had been contaminated by wheat gluten from China. Wheat gluten is a vegetable protein found in everything from dietary supplements to baked goods to children's candy. Unfortunately, the Chinese exporters added a little something extra to its products -- a poisonous chemical called melamine.

Shortly thereafter it was discovered that the same deadly additive -- melamine -- was fed to hawks, chickens and fish destined for human consumption. Commissioner von Eschenbach claimed that the tainted pet food case, quote, "demonstrated FDA's effectiveness at detecting and containing a problem," end of quote.

His sunny prognosis has certainly been put to the test. The pet foods were recalled --were soon followed by recalls of tainted cantaloupes, toothpaste and the snack food Veggie Booty. And recent revelations about the scope of contaminated seafood imported from China are staggering.

Our first hearing on April 24th, 2007, exposed a fragmented food safety system beset with inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination and ineffective use of minimal resources. How did the FDA respond? It announced with great fanfare the appointment of a food safety czar. In fact, Dr. David Acheson, who received a glorified new title, has been central to FDA's food safety program for years. Promoting Dr. Acheson does not begin to address the depth and chronic shortcomings of FDA's food safety program.

Nearly 10 years ago, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the federal food safety system was not equipped to meet emerging challenges. Since then, these challenges has expanded expotentially (sic), while FDA's ability to protect the American people has declined even further.

Dr. David Kessler, FDA commissioner under both former Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, recently recalled -- recently called the food safety system as broken. Sadly, the preliminary findings of our investigation supports his assessment.

Investigators with the subcommittee traveled to interview FDA field personnel in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Kansas City; Winchester, Massachusetts; Atlanta, New York, and San Jose, Puerto Rico. FDA field personnel were more forthcoming about gaping holes in FDA's food safety net than were headquartered officials. We learned, for example, that while the FDA inspects less than 1 percent of all imported foods, only a small fraction of that 1 percent is actually tested for contaminates. FDA requires only that a private laboratory test a suspect food for possible contamination. These private labs and their testing are not subject to federal oversight. FDA field personnel were highly critical of private laboratory testing, which they described as shoddy or even scary.

Another significant finding by staff investigators confirmed a concern that Chairman Dingell and I share with -- regarding the use of carbon monoxide to make meat and seafood appear fresh. I have repeated requested, to no avail, that FDA or HHS rescind the ruling that carbon monoxide can be used to treat meat, poultry and seafood to make them look fresh regardless of their age or condition.

In San Francisco, subcommittee investigators discovered large numbers of seafood imports from Asia and elsewhere arriving in airtight packages containing carbon monoxide. When tested, fully 20 percent of the seafood had to be refused because of contamination or decomposition. In other words, this was rotten seafood made to look fresh with the use of carbon monoxide.

Our investigation also confirmed that FDA's food safety program is woefully understaffed. Entry reviewers, investigators and compliance officers simply cannot keep up with the flood of imported food. We confirmed that the FDA's ill-conceived decision to close seven of its 13 laboratories would likely expose Americans to even more dangers from unsafe food, particularly imports. We also learned from the FDA staff that importers have found ways to circumvent even this minimal FDA authority altogether by importing through ports with no FDA testing facilities.

FDA field personnel, who answered our questions in a forthright and cooperative manner, were invaluable to our investigation. However, several FDA employees were fearful of retaliation and requested not to testify today despite Commissioner von Eschenbach's promises of zero tolerance for retaliation against whistleblowers. This subcommittee has heard far too many reports of FDA retaliation against employees who criticize the agency. We do not risk -- we do not wish to risk the careers of FDA field staff who talk to our investigators, so our first panel will be committee staff testifying about their investigation.

Our second panel will consist of two expert witnesses and four FDA officials from labs that the administration plans to shut down. They have shown tremendous courage by agreeing to testify today. The last panel will be comprised of four officials from FDA headquarters, including Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who will provide the administration's testimony regarding the efforts of FDA to protect Americans from unsafe food.

The globalization of the American economy has resulted in a dramatic increase in the volume of imported foods. Last year, China alone exported to the United States $2.3 billion worth of agriculture products, not including seafood, compared with $133 million in 1980. However, while food imports grew expotentially (sic), FDA food inspections dropped from 50,000 in 1972 to 5,000 in 2006, a 90 percent reduction. Is it any wonder that one of -- that one out of every four Americans suffer a food-borne illness every year?

There's little question that our federal food safety system is in need of a broad-based reform to reduce the risk to public health, national security and the economy. Today's hearing will explore these risks in an effort to pave the way for reform.

That's the end of my closing statement. I next turn to my friend Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky for his opening statement.

Source