Sludge Watch ==> US to restrict food safety measures & cut food safety analysts

[Maureen Reilly]

Two stories:



Food safety agency asked to explain proposed analyst cuts
19.jun.07
Government Executive Magazine
By Anna Edney
http://www.govexec.com/about.htm

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders want the Food and Drug 
Administration to answer for a proposal to cut 196 food safety analysts at a 
time when contaminated spinach, peanut butter and pet food have led to 
high-profile recalls and deaths.

Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., and Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., wrote FDA Friday 
that they were shocked to learn the agency planned to cut microbiologists, 
chemists and engineers at laboratories around the country that test food 
samples.
"This number represents 37 percent of the total number of lab analysts 
currently working in the Office of Regulatory Affairs laboratories," the 
letter states. "This slashing of analysts comes after an already 24 percent 
reduction in lab analysts between 2003 and 2007. To say the least, these 
numbers are deeply disturbing."
FDA spokesman Doug Arbesfeld said the agency does not plan to cut any 
positions, though he did say it could decide, for example, if its goal would 
be better served with more inspectors and fewer analysts.
FDA has been under fire for inspecting a small percentage of imported food. 
Arbesfeld stressed the agency's ability to analyze samples would not suffer.
The Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is probing 
FDA's ability to secure the safety of the food supply, and is considering 
issuing subpoenas to compel FDA staff to testify before the subcommittee if 
lawmakers do not get the information they are looking for in the next two 
weeks, a committee aide said.


Farm bill could restrict state food safety agencies
19.jun.07
Consumers Union (NY)

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/foodregulators/004626.html

Washington -- Forty consumer, environmental, farmer and animal welfare 
groups today announced their opposition to a sweeping provision in the 2007 
Farm Bill that wipes out critical state and local authority to protect food 
safety, the environment, and humane animal treatment. The provision, Section 
123 of Title I, was quietly inserted in the House bill several weeks ago by 
the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee.

Consumers Union, the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, 
the Center for Food Safety, the Union of Concerned Scientists and three 
dozen other organizations today called for deletion of Section 123, in a 
letter sent today to the House Agriculture Committee. The full Committee 
will hold its mark up of the 2007 Farm Bill later this month.

“At a time when we have seen repeated food safety failures at FDA and USDA, 
we need more food safety protection, not less,” states Jean Halloran, 
Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union (publisher of 
Consumer Reports). “This clause would tie the hands of states on meat, 
poultry and genetically engineered food,” she said.

Section 123 would prevent states and localities from passing any laws 
prohibiting commercial use of USDA-inspected products. “This could prevent a 
local health inspector at a supermarket from condemning rodent-contaminated 
meat or poultry that has begun to go bad,” states Jean Halloran.
“Section 123 will subvert the principles of federalism and states’ rights,” 
states Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United 
States. “If this appalling and outrageous measure is approved, agribusiness 
will accomplish what it could not achieve in state legislatures – the 
evisceration of state laws to protect horses from slaughter and a raft of 
other democratically approved animal welfare reforms.”

Section 123 would also get in the way of state laws on biotechnology. No 
state could prohibit use in commerce of a product that USDA has determined 
is “non-regulated.” Both supporters and opponents of the measure agree that 
this refers to genetically engineered crops, which USDA “deregulates” after 
considering whether they might be a plant pest. “California, Arkansas and 
Missouri have passed laws creating state committees that review whether 
genetically engineered rice should be grown in the state,” notes Joe 
Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. “These laws, which 
farmers support, would be preempted.”

“This poorly conceived provision should be dropped immediately,” states 
Mendelson. “Just in the last several months we have seen problems with 
melamine in animal feed and ground beef contaminated with E. coli. Section 
123 takes us backwards by removing existing protections we have at the state 
and local level. We need increased, not decreased food safety efforts,” he 
said.

The forty groups signing onto the letter include:

American Humane
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
California Certified Organic Farmers
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Campaign for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
Center for Food Safety
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Consumers Union
Consumer Federation of America
Edmonds Institute
Equal Exchange
Farm Sanctuary
Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers, Inc.
Food and Water Watch
Government Accountability Project
Health Care Without Harm
The Humane Society of the United States
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for a Sustainable Future
Minnesota COACT (Citizens Organized Acting Together)
Minnesota Food Association
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Consumers League
National Environmental Trust
National Organic Coalition
Organic Consumers Association,
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Public Citizen
Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP)
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment
Say No To GMOs
Sierra Club
Society for Animal Protective Legislation,
Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Union of Concerned Scientists,
Washington Biotechnology Action Council
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group