Last night, the House of Representatives gave its final approval to a bill to give more resources and authority to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). House members approved a package, negotiated among House and Senate leaders earlier this week, by a vote of 424-1.

The overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill is a sign of how serious a concern product safety has become for consumers and policy makers. Last year's record number of recalls, many of which were for lead-contaminated toys, spotlighted the gaps in the nation's consumer product safety net and the inadequacies of the CPSC.

The bill would address many problems by providing CPSC with more money and staff, mandating a ban on lead in children's products, mandating standards for all-terrain vehicle safety, expanding protections for whistleblowers, creating a consumer complaint data base, and much more. One provision would ban phthalates pending further study, a revolutionary concept for the regulation of toxic substances (more on that here).

The Senate may vote on the bill as early as today. It is imperative that the Senate finish its work on this bill before it leaves for a lengthy recess. If the Senate does not act by tomorrow, consumers will have to wait until after Labor Day to see this legislation passed.

President Bush has expressed opposition to some provisions in the bill but has not threatened a veto. Bush should signal his support for the measure as soon as possible so that we can end the legislative debate and begin taking action to protect consumers.

Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for updates.

After a protracted House/Senate negotiating period, Democratic and Republican leaders came to an agreement on several controversial provisions in a bill to improve consumer product safety. Early reports indicate that negotiators came down on the side of public health on most or all of the issues that had proved difficult to hash out. CQ.com reports:

While the final provisions have not been released, advocates and lobbyists say there will be language to protect whistleblowers, make toy safety standards mandatory, regulate manufacturing of all-terrain vehicles and give state attorneys general certain decision-making powers….

One of the most controversial provisions in the Senate's bill, a restriction on phthalates — a plastic softener some believe can damage reproductive development — made it into the agreement in modified form.

According to House aides, the deal would ban three of the six suspect phthalates outright, for all children's toys. The other three phthalates would be banned temporarily in products that could be put into a child's mouth, pending further study and rulemaking.

The news on phthalates — that a ban would be enacted pending further study and would only end if the substances' safety is proven — is a radical departure from the way the federal government generally regulates chemicals. Usually, chemicals are released into the market and used without restriction. If initial toxicity studies show a potential health risk exists, researchers inside federal agencies may take a more in-depth look. If research shows a health risk exists (and overcome the often-specious claims from the anti-government crowd that more certainty is needed), all that's left is navigating the labyrinth of rulemaking requirements agencies must go through before an exposure standard or ban can take effect.

The safety-first approach embodied in Congress's phthalate ban would protect public health in the interim without condemning the substances to an eternal regulatory graveyard. The interim ban shifts the burden of proof onto phthalate manufacturers and users. If the safety of phthalates is proven, they're back on the market.

Congress's action on phthalates is a refreshing take on public health. As consumers, we are exposed to scads of chemicals every day. For many of these chemicals, some studies indicate a risk to public health, but more research is needed before we can paint an accurate portrait of how much of the substances we're exposed to and what they do in the human body.

The presumption that chemicals should be safe would reduce consumer exposure. It would also have the added bonus of creating a market incentive for quick, accurate completion of toxicity studies. Moreover, accurate, transparent scientific findings would provide consumers with a tool for making buying decisions they believe to be in their best interest. Sounds pretty logical, doesn't it?

Yesterday, Reg•Watch asked the question, "Will Congress Wrap Up Consumer Safety Bill?" The answer turned out to be "no," as lawmakers' talks stalled during a meeting intended to finalize a version of a bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Lawmakers did agree to set up a publicly searchable consumer product complaint database which was one of the controversial provisions that needed to be worked out.

Other sticking points remain, including a ban on phthalates, extended protections for whistleblowers, and federal preemption of state law. The House and Senate conference committee members hope to meet again next week to hash out the remaining differences.

In a few minutes, members of the House and Senate are set to meet to work on sorting out differences between their respective versions of consumer product safety legislation. Both versions of the bill would expand the budget and authority of the beleaguered Consumer Product Safety Commission, but other provisions have proved contentious.

Congress Daily (subscription) reports:

The House passed its CPSC reauthorization in December and the Senate approved its version in March. Conferees first met last month, when they agreed on 21 items. They left the more troublesome measures for today.

Among them, a ban on phthalates in children's products, which is included in the Senate version but not the House's. Studies have shown phthalate exposure to cause developmental abnormalities, particularly in fetuses and infants. The European Union and the state of California have already announced restrictions on phthalates.

The creation of a publicly accessible consumer complaint database, another Senate invention, has also stoked debate. Critics of the database say it would be too expensive, according to Congress Daily. The Senate version also includes protection for whistleblowers who report dangerous products from their perches at private firms. (Read more on the whistleblower issue here.)

Both bills include a provision that would preclude CPSC from establishing rules that preempt state and local law — an issue that has angered industry trade groups. The Bush administration has a penchant for including language in federal rules saying that if a product maker complies with federal regulation, the product maker is not liable under state common law. This legal doctrine, known as preemption, prevents consumers from seeking damages, or tort, claims after being injured by a product. Hopefully, the provision in the CPSC bill will survive the House/Senate conference.

CPSC is in dire need of reform after more than a year of product safety debacles. In 2007, CPSC was in the news for all the wrong reasons. Recalls of lead-contaminated children's products reached all-time highs. A long-term vacancy in the commission left it without a quorum, preventing it from conducting official business. President Bush nominated a product industry lobbyist to fill the vacancy, but the conflict of interest of a lobbyist regulating his former cronies was too much for Congress and the public to swallow, and the nomination was pulled. Finally, the acting commissioner, Nancy Nord, was caught taking lavish trips funded by the consumer product industry.

Mostly due to the outrage over lead in toys, Congress had hoped to finalize the legislation by Christmas 2007. After that convenient PR deadline passed, Democratic leadership let the bill slide down its list of priorities. Four months after passage of the Senate version, a conference of House and Senate leaders is only now working out the controversial aspects of the bill.

Reg•Watch Update: "On Consumer Product Bill, More Work Remains"

The New York Times has an article this morning further underscoring the problems the FDA has tracking the sources of food-borne illness outbreaks. The toll of the current salmonella outbreak has exceeded 1,000 victims "in what officials said Wednesday was the largest food-borne outbreak in the last decade."

Initially, tomatoes were thought to be the culprit of the outbreak. FDA then said it was expanding its search to other types of produce but emphasized tomatoes were still the lead suspect. But according to the article, "Federal investigators have now linked at least some of the outbreak to fresh jalapenos."

The complexity of the supply chain — which shuffles tomatoes and other produce across state and national boundaries for processing, packaging, and distribution — makes identifying the source of this or any other food-borne illness outbreak a major challenge for FDA. A retailer may buy produce from multiple distributors, each of which likely collects a variety of goods from multiple growers.

However, critics say the FDA itself is at least partially to blame. According to two consumer groups, Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Consumer Federation of America, FDA does not have the necessary safeguards in place to prevent and track food-borne illnesses. Those groups say, "Source traceability for produce, written food safety plans for farmers, processors, and packinghouses, and tighter controls on repacking" are necessary but lacking, despite repeated pleas from food safety advocates.

In the case of the salmonella outbreak, more than a month after the first nationwide warning FDA has been unable to tell consumers what type of produce to watch out for, and it isn't even sure whether the source is foreign or domestic.

Despite the worsening public health crisis and the growing embarrassment for FDA, the agency won't be changing its tune on food tracking. According to the Times article, "Dr. David Acheson, the agency's associate commissioner for foods, said in a telephone interview on Monday that the F.D.A. lacked authority to require full trace-back capability, adding, 'It's the industry's responsibility to put that kind of system in place, not ours.' "

Acheson was promoted at FDA last year to lead its food safety efforts. He started with a "commitment to making the wobbly global food-safety system work better," according to The Washington Post.

But based on his comment that FDA is not responsible for food tracking, Acheson clearly fits in well with the Bush administration's hands-off approach to regulating which leaves consumers fending for themselves. Acheson seems determined to make sure FDA repeats its failures.

The Times article also addresses the issue of whether FDA has the authority to track food through the supply chain:

But Dr. David A. Kessler, the F.D.A. commissioner in the Clinton and first Bush administrations, said the agency has the authority to require the industry to trace produce as it travels from "farm to table," but has lacked "the impetus" to do so.

"The technology exists to trace the entire chain of a food product," Dr. Kessler said. "The agency needs to require the industry to put into effect mechanisms to do full trace-back. That regulation could be put in place in months, not years."

Two stories today highlight the problems with tracking the path of contaminated food through the supply chain and how those problems impact public health.

In the first story, from Washington Post reporter Annys Shin, we learn federal officials are now backing away from their earlier claim that tomatoes are responsible for the recent outbreak of a rare strain of salmonella. The news — a significant step backwards in identifying the problem, ensuring public health, and restoring peace of mind — comes more than three weeks after the tomato scare burst into the headlines.

Shin quotes FDA food safety official David Acheson as saying, "The tomato trail is still hot. It's a question of whether other items are getting hotter."

The complexity of the supply chain — which shuffles tomatoes and other produce across state and national boundaries for processing, packaging, and distribution — makes identifying the source of the contamination nearly impossible for FDA. Combine that difficulty with the FDA's resource shortfalls and the Bush administration's rosy outlook on product safety and the situation becomes even grimmer.

Meanwhile, as Shin reports, "The outbreak has sickened 869 people in 36 states and the District of Columbia since mid-April." The latest case of illness was reported June 20, two weeks after FDA's national warning.

The other story, from Columbus Dispatch reporter Misti Crane, concerns a beef recall targeted in Ohio and Michigan. Nebraska Beef, which supplies Kroger grocery stores, announced the recall after an outbreak of E. coli. Unfortunately, Crane reports, the recall "does not give information that's likely to help you figure out if what's in your refrigerator or freezer is harmful."

So while the recall has only been linked to illnesses in Ohio thus far, its effects could be much broader:

The nearly 532,000 pounds in question might have been mixed into an undetermined number of pounds of ground beef. It is common practice in meat-grinding facilities to combine product from multiple sources.

Beef parts from Nebraska Beef went to other companies in the state and to companies in Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.

In the area of food safety, it seems like history is repeating itself over and over. A public health crisis prompts a federal response; but officials soon realize they are handcuffed by lack of information and lack of resources. Consumers are left in the dark, barely placated by government promises and too ill-informed to make decisions that could help them protect themselves and their families. Eventually the problem just fades away (for those not sickened by the food in question), with lessons never learned.