Will USDA’s Food Safety Agency Ever Have a Leader?

 

Food Safety News reports today that there is no timetable for moving the nomination of Elisabeth Hagen to the Senate floor. Hagen, currently the chief medical officer at USDA, is the nominee to lead the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the USDA agency responsible for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products.

President Obama did not nominate Hagen until Jan. 26, 2010, more than a full year into his term. Then, the Agriculture Committee waited until May 27, another four months, to hold a nomination hearing. Now, the committee will need to hold another hearing to report the nomination to the full Senate.

Catfish During the nomination hearing, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), chair of the committee, complained that FSIS had not yet proposed a rule requiring inspection of catfish and defining exactly what species will be treated as catfish. "I believe that this is one of the more pressing food safety concerns that exists right now," she said. The 2008 Farm Bill requires FSIS to write and enforce catfish regulations. The bill set a final deadline of December 2009, but FSIS has yet to even propose the rule, let alone finalize it.

Lincoln is, quite frankly, full of it. If the catfish inspection rule, or food safety in general, was a priority for Lincoln, she would have moved Hagen’s nomination much more aggressively.

The catfish inspection rule is currently under review at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). FSIS prepared a draft proposal and submitted it to OIRA on Nov. 13, 2009. OIRA is supposed to spend no more than 120 days reviewing agency drafts, but the rule has now been under review for 201 days and counting.

Inside U.S. Trade (sorry, subscription only) reported earlier this year that the proposal has stalled amid concerns lodged by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, another arm of the White House. USTR is concerned about the rule’s impact on trade and potential costs to importers. Choosing which species will be classified as catfish could also affect trade, because several different types of imported fish species are marketed as catfish in U.S. stores. Needless to say, Congress delegated decisions on the definition and other aspects of the rule to USDA, not USTR or OIRA.

Aside from the trouble surrounding the catfish rule, FSIS has made little progress on its rulemaking agenda, publishing only one proposed rule and no final rules in the last six months. It is safe to assume that FSIS’s ability to write new rules has been severely hampered by its lack of a Senate-confirmed leader.

Why then, would Lincoln stall the confirmation of the one person who could jump start rulemaking at FSIS? A Senate-confirmed leader would be more effective at setting priorities for the agency and more likely to stand up to OIRA and/or USTR if they are indeed holding up the catfish inspection rule.

The Agriculture Committee has only held three hearings in all of 2010, according to its website, so don’t expect Lincoln to move quickly on the nomination when Congress returns from Memorial Day recess next week.

Image by Flicr user ViNull, used under a Creative Commons license.

(Matthew Madia 06/03/10)

Comments

I doubt there's any real

I doubt there's any real risk, just more fear peddling...

OK, you have to love this.

OK, you have to love this. Someone actually believes that the Office of Catfish Inspection and the inspection of catfish is one of America's most pressing food safety issues? Hello???? Has anyone out there ever heard of ANYONE getting sick from catfish? Anyone? Anyone? Mr. Bueller? Why shift from FDA -- -not because USDA is better (ever hear of the millions of pounds of e.coli-tainted meat that has to be recalled? ---- after USDA inspectors passed them through? And people wonder why we are sick and tired of how government works.

Kathleen, I bet we could

Kathleen, I bet we could fill an ocean with things you haven't heard of. CDC data shows that foodborne outbreaks have occured due catfish. Perhaps you or your colleagues at the FDA or NOAA should look into it. Even if this weren't true, is the endpoint your looking for a hospitalization or dead kid in the hospital? The USDA is far from perfect, but if it ever happens, will be much better than the absentee FDA or weak enforcement of NOAA. Yes, it is a very safe product...yes, it could be better.

USDA Should Clean Up Its Own Yard First

Beg your pardon, Anonymous, what CDC data are you referring to that shows outbreaks related to catfish? Are you referring to the 1 recorded in 1991 that sickened 10 people? Shall we tally up the outbreaks associated with beef, chicken and pork since 1991? How about USDA cleans up its own yard before it starts nosing around in the neighbors? Oh and that yard could use some cleaning. Have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4&feature=related

Yes, see link below. The

Yes, see link below.

The remainder of your argument is meaningless. I have no desire to defend the USDA, even though that seems to be the position I am in. I do not and have never worked for the government. I have already stated that the USDA is far from perfect but I have had experience with both agencies and from what I have seen the USDA actually tries to do their job. The FDA is anemic.

BUT, lets not pretend that the FDA has not had their share of outbreaks under your authority. Perhaps you've forgotten.

Anon: The thimble that is

Anon: The thimble that is your knowledge vessel is not yet half filled. CDC did in fact have an outbreak attributable to catfish --- in 1991 some people got sick at a fish fry ..... and it was probably from cole slaw not the fish. Don't those that worry about increased government costs have better ways to waste taxpayer dollars than shifting a whole inspection, based on an incident from 19 years ago. Glad we agree that the fish is safe --- so why the move, if not for protectionist needs?

Nice try

"Kathleen,"

Thanks for refreshing my memory. Did you actually look up the CDC outbreak data? Why isn't cole slaw mentioned? It only states catfish. Were you there? Did you collect data or perform the cultures?

http://cdc.gov/outbreaknet/pdf/surveillance1991_linelist.pdf

Nice try!

I will humbly acquiesce that the origins are protectionist. Are you suggesting that protectionism is entirely wrong? How many other American industries/products have benefited from similar legislation to help prevent their complete obliteration? Have you benefited from this in some way from another industry? I would guess not since you're obviously a federal employee.

I know of some catfish producers who haven't been visited by the FDA in 5+ years for inspection. Some of them don't use NOAA either. If you don't think the USDA would do a better job than what currently exists you're just as unbiased as me and kidding yourself...again...nice try.

The link appears to be broken

The link appears to be broken but I am sure y'all can find it.

USDA

Gosh, I thought we elected a President, not an Agriculture Secretary. Congress may have indicated that the Secretary develops the rule, but doesn't that person work for the President? Shouldn't we want USTR, and HHS, and other State, and other departments that have a stake in what USDA does to provide input to the White House when a rule is over there? Isn't that why we elect a head of our government, not individual "ministers". Let's face it, this rule is protectionist on its face. If I were a pork producer, a cattleman, or someone selling soybeans to Vietnam I would make sure the White House (and Secretary Vilscak) know that I don't appreciate USDA protecting a small farm segment at the expense of my much more significant exports.

Your right, trade interests

Your right, trade interests are more important than human health!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.