Food safety , China sourced food and China processed food.
Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Room 562 Washington, DC 20510 | Tuesday, June 17, 2014
- 3:30pm to 5:00pm
Recently major pet stores have
announced they would stop selling dog and cat treats made in China following
the deaths of 1,000 dogs which may be linked to pet treats from China. Chickens
raised in the United States may now be shipped to China for processing before
being sold in the United States. Researchers are also exploring the connection
between the domestic outbreak of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus with China.
These developments have highlighted concerns over the effectiveness of China’s
food safety regulation, the effectiveness of U.S. government regulation of
imported foods from China, and the overall safety of such foods. Moreover, they
raise questions about whether current labels are adequate in helping American
consumers determine when foods or its constituent components come from
China.
Congressional-Executive Commission On China Examines
Food Safety
June 17, 2014, statement
of Senator Sherrod Brown to Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
As prepared for delivery.
Statement of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, Chairman of
the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC).
CECC Hearing on “Pet Treats and Processed Chicken
from China: Concerns for
American Consumers and Pets” Tuesday, June 17, 2014.
We have called this hearing to seek answers for American
consumers, pet owners, farmers, and parents about the safety of pet treats,
processed chicken, and animal feed from China.
Americans want to know where their foods come from and want to
make sure that everything is being done to keep it safe.
Sixty-two million households in this country have a pet. They are
raising 83 million dogs and 96 million cats just like members of their family.
That’s why it’s so troubling that seven years on, we still do not
know what’s causing the deaths and illnesses of thousands of dogs. Just last
month, the FDA said that reports of illnesses had increased to 5,600 pets,
including 1,000 dog deaths, and now three human illnesses. While no cause has
been identified despite extensive study, the illnesses may be linked to pet
treats from China.
Days later, major pet stores Petco and Petsmart announced they
would be phasing out the sale of pet treats from China out of safety concerns.
Many of us still remember the pet food scare and recalls of 2007,
the result of melamine-tainted pet food from China.
Given this, pet owners in Ohio and across America are rightfully
concerned. When they go to the store to buy treats and food for their pet, they
face difficult and confusing questions, just like the ones our family faces for
our dog Franklin.
If something says it’s made in China, can we be assured that it is
safe? If it says it’s made in the USA, what exactly does that mean? Is
everything being done to keep pet treats safe?
Last year, the USDA declared that China is eligible to export
processed, cooked chicken to the United States, paving the way for chicken
sourced in the United States to be shipped to China for processing and then
sold back to American consumers.
While no such chicken has entered our shores yet, it’s possible
that very soon this processed chicken could end up on our dinner tables and in
our school lunchrooms.
Can we trust our Chinese counterparts to enforce safety up to our
own standards, given China’s poor enforcement of their own laws and rampant
corruption? Will the label clearly indicate that the chicken was processed in
China, so Americans can make an informed choice?
And finally, researchers are exploring a possible link between
animal feed from China and the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) that has
wiped out some 10 percent of our pig population. It’s been a year and no
definitive cause has been identified.
Americans want and require better answers, clearer labels, and the
peace of mind that the foods we import from China are safe.
I appreciate the FDA and USDA being here to shed more light on
these issues and to help American consumers better understand them.
In the meantime, I would urge the Chinese government to fully
cooperate with our agencies and to make significant improvements in their food
safety system.
And I would urge our FDA and USDA to continue devoting every
effort to determining the cause of the pet illnesses and PEDv.
I urge companies to ensure the highest safety standards and to put
pet and human safety first.
Finally, I would also urge us in Congress to consider whether we
need to update our labeling requirements to take into account an increasingly
globalized marketplace and to ensure the public health of our citizens.
Witnesses
Dr.
Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Field Operations, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Statement
of Dan Engeljohn, PhD, Assistant Administrator Food Safety and Inspection
Service, Office of Field Operations United State Department of Agriculture
Before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China June 17, 2014.
Chairman Brown, Co-Chairman
Smith, and members of the Commission, I am Dr. Dan Engeljohn, Assistant
Administrator of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service’s Office of Field
Operations. I am pleased to appear before you today to explain the current
state of U.S. regulatory oversight of poultry exported from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) for human food.
Our
Mission: First, let me take some time to explain FSIS’s mandate. By law,
FSIS is required to examine and inspect all slaughtered and processed livestock
and poultry, as well as all processed egg products produced for use in commerce
for human consumption. Our inspectors and veterinarians monitor the health of
the animals brought to slaughter and ensure that livestock are treated
humanely. These inspectors also collect the samples that our scientists analyze
for the presence of pathogens and illegal drug residues. These dedicated men
and women are on the front lines nationwide enforcing regulations and
directives backed by scientific evidence to ensure that meat, poultry, and
processed eggs in commerce are safe and wholesome.
FSIS also regulates all
imported meat, poultry, and processed egg products intended for use as human
food through a three part process:
First, (sic) before
FSIS-regulated products can enter the country, the agency determines whether
the food safety regulatory system of any country that wishes to export to the
United States is equivalent to our own system.
Second, once FSIS finds a
foreign country’s food safety system to be equivalent, FSIS re- inspects
eligible products from that country at U.S. ports-of-entry. During FY 2013,
1FSIS personnel inspected approximately 3 billion
pounds of meat and poultry products presented for import by 28 actively
exporting foreign countries, as well as about 10 million pounds of processed
egg products.
Third and finally, FSIS
evaluates an exporting country’s food safety system on an ongoing basis. Each
year, FSIS reviews any changes in the foreign country's food safety system.
In addition, FSIS may
conduct an in-country audit of the system and will review the country's
performance in port-of-entry inspections. Based on these reviews, the Agency
decides whether the country is maintaining equivalence, or whether additional
Agency action is warranted. This performance-based approach allows FSIS to
direct its resources to foreign food regulatory systems that potentially pose a
risk to public health and makes our international program more consistent with
the U.S. domestic inspection system. Our approach improves the linkage between
port-of-entry re-inspection and on-site audits.
Regulatory
Oversight: Again, let me assure you that FSIS follows every mandate given the
Agency to ensure that our food supply is safe. FSIS audits any foreign country
that wishes to export meat, poultry, or processed egg products to the United
States. A foreign country’s inspection system must ensure that establishments
preparing to export to the United States comply with requirements equivalent to
those in the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act,
the Egg Products Inspection Act, and in FSIS regulations. This is true for the
PRC as it would be for any other country.
As you know, pursuant to
requirements in the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (PL 111-80), the
Agency is also required to provide Congress with detailed updates on China’s
request for equivalency every six months. However, let me explain briefly where
we are in the process for the PRC – a process that began in 2004 with the PRC’s
request for on-site FSIS audits of its poultry processing and slaughter system.
First, the United States is
not importing any chicken that was slaughtered in China. A March 2013 audit
found China’s poultry slaughter system
not equivalent to that in the United States; and
Second, FSIS reaffirmed in
August 2013 that the PRC’s poultry
processing inspection system is equivalent to that of the United States. This means that
chicken slaughtered in the U.S. or another country whose poultry slaughter
system has been found by FSIS to be equivalent to the U.S. system could be sent
to China for processing and then exported to the United States.
Again, the only chicken
currently permitted to be imported from China is processed chicken from
approved sources. FSIS, in coordination with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), also currently requires that all processed chicken
products from China be cooked.
China has provided a list
of four plants it has certified as eligible to export processed chicken to the
United States. Before any processed chicken can be exported to the United
States, a proper export health certificate must be developed by the PRC and
approved by FSIS and APHIS. Such a certificate, a draft of which was submitted
earlier this month, must demonstrate that the poultry is sourced from the
United States or from a country with an inspection system for slaughter that is
equivalent to that of the United States and that the poultry was cooked to a
proper temperature, among other things. Once FSIS and APHIS approve a
certificate, and that certificate is agreed to by the PRC, the PRC will then be
able to determine when to begin shipping products from the plants certified to
export processed poultry products to the United States. The Agency doesn’t have
any information about how much processed product it expects China to ship once
certification is up and running.
In addition to carrying a
proper certificate, product must be properly labeled. Under Poultry Products
Inspection Act regulations at 9 CFR 381.205, immediate containers of poultry
products imported into the United States for human consumption must bear a
label showing the name of the country of origin. Because processed product from
China must be cooked, FSIS believes that it is unlikely that the product would
be repacked or further processed in this country. If a product is not repacked
or further processed, the label would indicate that the product is from the
PRC. If the product were to be repacked or further processed in the United
States at an official establishment, it would not include information that such
product was from the PRC, but it would be repacked or processed under FSIS
inspection. However, I would like to emphasize again that our systems-based
approach to equivalence is designed to assure Americans that the food safety
systems of other countries that FSIS finds to be equivalent, including the
PRC’s, are effective.
Of course, FSIS will also
conduct annual on-site audits of the PRC’s inspection system for processed
poultry for at least the next 3 years, as we would do for any country that has
just been found to be equivalent.
Conclusion: The dedicated men and women
of FSIS work every day toward a common and extremely important goal of preventing
food-borne illness. We take our mission seriously and understand the importance
of our roles in ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply – whether from
domestic or from foreign establishments.
Thank you for your
continued support and the opportunity to report on the work we do to protect
public health.
June 17, 2014,
statement of Tracey Forfa to Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
Tracey Forfa,
J.D., Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Good afternoon, Chairman
Brown, Co-Chairman Smith, and Members of the Commission. I am Tracey Forfa,
Deputy Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency), which is part of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). Thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to discuss FDA’s investigation into reported illnesses in pets that consumed
jerky pet treats.
FDA has been receiving
reports of pet illnesses associated with the consumption of jerky pet treats
since 2007. As of May 1, 2014, FDA has received approximately 4,800 such
reports, including 1,800 complaints received since FDA’s website update in
October 2013. The reports received involve illnesses in more than 5,600 dogs,
24 cats, three humans, and, sadly, more than 1,000 canine deaths. Most of the
reported cases involve chicken, duck, or sweet potato jerky products imported
from China. Unfortunately, to date, FDA has not been able to identify a
specific cause for the reported illnesses or deaths despite an intensive
scientific investigation. Getting to the bottom of this problem is a priority
for FDA, and the Agency is continuing its comprehensive investigation into the
potential cause of the pet illnesses.
The ongoing global
investigation is complex and includes a wide variety of experts at FDA,
including toxicologists, epidemiologists, veterinary researchers, forensic
chemists, microbiologists, field investigators, state research partners, and
senior Agency officials. FDA has collaborated with our colleagues in academia
and industry and has reached out to U.S. pet food firms to enlist their help
and to share data involving this public health investigation. FDA is updating
veterinarians and pet owners about the investigation regularly via the Agency’s
website and a webpage dedicated specifically to issues related to jerky treats.
This information has been further disseminated to veterinarians by various
groups, including the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). Most
recently, on May 16, 2014, CVM released an update entitled “FDA Provides Latest
Information on Jerky Pet Treat Investigation.” CVM also has a webpage entitled
“FDA Progress Report on Ongoing Investigation into Jerky Pet Treats.” In
addition, the Agency will continue to remind pet owners that jerky pet treats
are not necessary for pets to have a fully balanced diet, so eliminating them
will not harm pets since commercially produced pet food contains all of the
nutrients that pets need.
Adverse
events report: The 4,800 reports of pet illnesses received by FDA cover many
sizes and ages of dogs, and multiple breeds. About 60 percent of the reports
are for gastrointestinal illness and about 30 percent relate to kidney or
urinary issues. Some dogs with kidney or urinary issues were diagnosed with
Fanconi or Fanconi-like Syndrome, a rare kidney disease normally seen primarily
in certain breeds as a genetic disease, although Fanconi can also be acquired
following exposure to kidney toxins. Affected dogs were reported to involve a
wide variety of breeds, which makes genetic Fanconi Syndrome unlikely. The
background incidence of Fanconi Syndrome in dogs is currently unknown, but it
appears to be increasingly reported in association with jerky treat ingestion.
The remaining 10 percent of cases involve a variety of other symptoms,
including convulsions, tremors, hives, and skin irritation.
In October 2013, FDA
published an update on the Agency’s website which resulted in a surge of 1,800
adverse event reports received by FDA. The Agency has determined that about 25
percent of the 1,800 reported cases were “historic”; that is, the illnesses
occurred several months or even years previously. The remaining cases were more
recent, but may or may not have received veterinary attention. Of the new cases
since October, the Agency has identified about 125 well- documented cases for
further investigation, and has continued to correspond with the owners and
veterinarians of these pets to track their progress and to obtain test samples
of blood, urine, feces, and tissue.
In addition to the October
2013 website update, FDA reached out through the AVMA to solicit information
about new or ongoing cases currently under veterinary care. This is a novel
approach, and it resulted in the submission of tissue samples (blood, urine,
feces, necropsy, etc.) from affected dogs that were associated with jerky pet
treat exposure.
FDA has also had the
opportunity to perform post-mortem examinations on dogs suspected of having
jerky-pet-treat-associated illnesses. As of May 1, 2014, the Agency completed
26 post- mortems on the samples submitted since October 2013. In half of the
cases, the dogs’ cause of death was due to a variety of other causes, such as
widespread cancer, trauma or infections; in the remaining 13 cases, 11 had
kidney disease and two involved gastrointestinal disease. An exact causal
relationship between these deaths and jerky pet treats has not been determined,
but involvement of jerky pet treats has not been ruled out. We are
exceptionally grateful to the owners who consented to allow FDA to perform
post-mortem examinations of their beloved pets. We understand this is a
difficult decision to make and sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn
more about the potential cause of their pets’ deaths.
Beginning in May 2014, FDA
has partnered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to
collaborate on a study of cases reported to FDA of sick dogs compared with
“controls” (dogs that have not been ill). The goal of the study is to compare
the foods eaten by the sick dogs (cases) to those eaten by the dogs that did
not get sick (controls), in order to determine whether sick dogs are eating
more jerky pet treats than healthy dogs.
Investigators have
identified about 100 cases of kidney illnesses in dogs reported to FDA to have
occurred on or after July 1, 2013. The cases included dogs diagnosed with
Fanconi or Fanconi- like illness, or dogs that were five years of age or
younger and had kidney failure, regardless of jerky pet treat exposure. Cases
were selected solely on this case definition and not on what food they
consumed. Data collected during this investigation will allow Federal
investigators to better understand what is making pets sick. The study is still
ongoing, and FDA will share results when the study is completed.
Pet
food sample testing: Since 2011, in concert with FDA’s Veterinary Laboratory
Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN), which partners with state and
university veterinary diagnostic laboratories, the Agency has collected
approximately 250 jerky treat samples related to more than 165 consumer-
related complaints, plus more than 200 retail samples (unopened bags obtained
from a store or shipment), and has performed more than 1,000 tests on these
samples. In addition, the team at Vet-LIRN ran more than 240 tests on
historical samples (those received in 2007-2011).
FDA’s Vet-LIRN program has
included intensive testing for numerous contaminants such as: Salmonella;
metals or elements such as arsenic; pesticides; antibiotics; antivirals; mold
and toxins from mold testing; rodenticides; nephrotoxins such as ethylene
glycol and melamine; and other chemicals and poisonous compounds. FDA’s test
results of jerky treat product samples for toxic metals, including tests for
heavy metals, have been negative.
Testing has also included
measuring the composition of jerky pet treats to verify that they contain the
ingredients listed on the label and do not contain ingredients that are not
listed on the label. FDA is reaching out to private food testing laboratories
for help with this work to better allow FDA to focus efforts on other aspects
of the investigation. It is important to understand the composition of a
product and its ingredients to determine where there might be a potential for
problems to occur. For example, during a prior investigation involving
contaminated pet food, FDA looked carefully at all the ingredients and it was
later discovered that melamine was being used to raise the level of the protein
in the products. Currently, FDA is investigating whether potentially
contaminated glycerin could be a possible source of the reported illnesses in
pets. FDA has tested a limited number of samples of glycerin obtained from
inspections and is actively investigating new methodologies for analyzing
glycerin for a variety of contaminants or impurities.
Testing of jerky pet treats
from China has revealed the presence of the drug amantadine in some samples
containing chicken. These samples were from jerky pet treats that were sold a
year or more ago. Amantadine is an antiviral medication that is FDA-approved
for use in humans. It has also been used in an extra-label manner (using an
approved drug in a way that is not listed on the label) in dogs for pain
control, but FDA prohibited its use in poultry in 2006.
FDA does not believe that
amantadine contributed to the illnesses because the known side effects or
adverse events associated with amantadine do not seem to correlate with the
symptoms seen in the jerky-pet-treat-related cases. Amantadine, however, should
not be present at all in jerky pet treats, and the Agency has notified the
Chinese Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
(AQSIQ) that the presence of amantadine in these products is an adulterant.
Chinese authorities have assured FDA that they will perform additional
screening and will follow up with jerky pet treat manufacturers. FDA has
notified the U.S. companies that market jerky pet treats that were found
positive for amantadine of this finding and is testing both imported and
domestic jerky pet treats for amantadine and other antivirals. FDA is in the
process of conducting a survey assignment of both domestic and imported jerky
pet treats for amantadine, as well as other antivirals. Of the 41 samples
analyzed thus far, only one has tested positive for antivirals.
FDA’s testing also found
various antibiotic residues in chicken jerky pet treats, which were also found
by the N.Y. State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Though FDA does not
believe the presence of these residues contributed to the reported illnesses in
jerky pet treats, they should not be present in the products. These findings
led to the temporary removal from the market of two major brands of jerky pet
treats.
Interaction
with China: It was just over a year ago that FDA testified before this
Commission about FDA’s efforts to ensure global product safety and quality,
particularly in our work related to China. China is the source of a large and
growing volume of imported foods, drugs, and ingredients. Every product
imported from abroad must meet the same standards as those produced here in the
United States. Firms always have the primary responsibility to produce safe products,
but it is important that governments provide meaningful and robust regulation
to ensure public safety. FDA is continuing its work with Chinese officials to
help them improve their regulatory system and educate them on the new standards
that are being implemented in our regulatory system.
FDA has held regular
meetings with the Chinese authority, AQSIQ, about the jerky pet treat issue.
These meetings have helped to ensure that AQSIQ is aware of U.S. requirements
for pet food safety and to share information in support of FDA’s investigation.
In April 2012, FDA
conducted inspections of several facilities in China that manufacture jerky pet
treats for export to the United States. FDA selected these firms for inspection
because the jerky products they manufacture have been associated with some of
the highest numbers of pet illness reports in the United States. These
inspections provided valuable information on these firms’ jerky pet treat
manufacturing operations, including the ingredients and raw materials used in
manufacturing, as well as manufacturing equipment, the heat treatment of
products, packaging, quality control, sanitation, and product testing. Although
these inspections helped to identify additional areas that FDA may investigate,
the Agency found no evidence indicating that these firms’ jerky pet treats are
associated with pet illnesses in the United States. FDA, however, did identify
concerns about the record keeping practices of several of the inspected Chinese
firms. In particular, one firm falsified receiving documents for glycerin,
which is a common ingredient in jerky pet treats. As a result of the
inspection, the Chinese AQSIQ informed FDA that it had seized products at that
firm and suspended exports of the firm’s products to the United States.
As a follow-up to these
inspections, FDA sent a delegation to China in April 2012 to express our
concerns to AQSIQ about the complaints we continue to receive concerning jerky
pet treat products imported from that country. As a result, FDA and AQSIQ
agreed to expand the investigation of jerky pet treats. In addition to sharing
our epidemiological findings with AQSIQ, FDA initiated a scientific
collaboration, and has taken other steps to attempt to identify the root cause
of the illness complaints. As noted, FDA and AQSIQ are meeting regularly to
share findings and discuss further investigational approaches. FDA has also
hosted Chinese scientists at the Agency’s veterinary research facility to
further scientific cooperation.
Pet
food safety in general: Pet food safety in general continues to be a priority issue for
FDA. In response to section 1002 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 (FDAAA), FDA established the Pet Food Early Warning Surveillance
System. The goal of the surveillance system is to quickly identify contaminated
pet food and illness outbreaks associated with pet food. The system uses data
collected by two surveillance resources to collect information about
pet-food-related problems: FDA’s Consumer Complaint Reporting System (through
the FDA District Consumer Complaint Coordinators) and the FDA-National
Institutes of Health Safety Reporting Portal (SRP) (where consumers can submit
complaints regarding adverse events in animals associated with the consumption
of pet food). Information provided through these reporting mechanisms helps
provide early detection of problems with pet food, enabling FDA to respond
quickly to prevent or mitigate risks to people and animals.
The SRP launched in May
2010, allowing the public to submit complaints electronically. Using the
portal’s pet food questionnaire, consumers can report possible adverse health
effects associated with their pets’ food. Veterinarians may also report pet
food safety problems on behalf of their clients and provide valuable medical
information. Within days of opening the SRP for pet food complaints,
veterinarians identified a thiamine deficiency in a cat that only ate one brand
of canned food and reported it through the SRP. FDA notified the manufacturer,
which promptly initiated a recall.
Another important safety
surveillance tool is a new requirement, provided for in section 1005 of FDAAA,
that manufacturers, processors, packers, and holders of human or animal food
report to FDA if there is reasonable probability that an article of human or
animal food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to animals
or humans. In conjunction with that requirement, section 1005 also required FDA
to establish the Reportable Food Registry (RFR), an electronic portal to which
such reports can be submitted. The intent of the registry is to help FDA better
protect public health by tracking patterns of possible food and feed
adulteration and to better target inspection resources. By providing early
warning signals about potential health risks, it has increased the speed with
which FDA, its state and local partners, and industry can remove hazards from
the marketplace. For example, in 2011, a pet treat distribution company
submitted a report to the RFR that their pig ear dog treats were contaminated
with Salmonella. After FDA’s investigation, two lots of the affected pet
treats that had been distributed to 18 states were recalled.
In addition, FDA uses a
system called the Pet Event Tracking Network (PETNet) to share information
about emerging pet-food-related illnesses and product defects. PETNet is a
secure network launched in August 2011 that allows the exchange of information
between FDA and other Federal and state regulatory agencies. Using the shared
information, state and Federal agencies can work together to quickly determine
what regulatory actions are needed to prevent or quickly limit adverse effects
associated with pet food products.
Finally, section 1002 of
the FDAAA required FDA to establish processing standards for pet food. The
process controls standards for pet food have been incorporated into the
proposed rule, “Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and
Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals,” which, when finalized,
will implement, for animal food, section 103 of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act. The proposed rule, which issued on October 25, 2013,
establishes requirements for the safe manufacturing, processing, packing, and
holding of animal food to protect animals and humans from foodborne illness.
CONCLUSION: Thank you for the
opportunity to describe FDA’s ongoing efforts to determine a definitive cause
of the reported pet illnesses associated with jerky pet treats. The Agency is
devoting significant resources to actively investigate the problem and its
origin. FDA continues to work in collaboration with a wide variety of experts,
including our colleagues in academia and industry, our international
counterparts, and Federal, state and university laboratories, on this investigation.
If FDA’s investigation leads to the identification of any particular jerky pet
treat ingredient or contaminant that is associated with illnesses in pets, the
Agency intends to act quickly to notify the public of its findings and take
steps, as appropriate, to ensure the affected product is promptly removed from
the market. FDA encourages
consumers to check our website for updates on the ongoing investigation. As
noted above, we will continue to remind pet owners that jerky pet treats are
not necessary for a pet’s healthy diet.
I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
June
17, 2014 statement Shaun Kennedy to Congressional-Executive Commission on
China.
Shaun Kennedy,
Director of the Food System Institute, LLC; Adjunct Associate Professor,
Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Minnesota
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China Hearing
“Pet
Treats and Processed Chicken from China: Concerns for American Consumers and
Pets”
June
17, 2014
Chairman
Brown, Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the Commission, I would like
to thank you for this opportunity to provide my perspective on current concerns
with the safety of the food and feed system and potential steps to make it safer.
I am the Director of the Food System Institute, LLC, a food system risk
management and research firm and I have been focused on protecting our food
system for years in prior positions as Director of the National Center for Food
Protection and Defense, as Associate Professor of Food Systems in the
Department of Veterinary Population Medicine at the University of Minnesota and
as Vice President of Global Food and Beverage Research Development and
Engineering for Ecolab.
As
is often the case, there are a number of ongoing public and animal health
concerns that are related to potential food and feed contamination. The pet deaths
that appear to be attributable to jerky treats imported from China have raised
concerns among many that we are exposed to unknown risks due to imported food
products and food ingredients.
The
most commonly identified type of treats are chicken jerky treats, which may
also raise concern that the USDA’s designation of China as an “equal to”
country for processed poultry will expose consumers to additional unknown
risks.
The
potential that the ongoing Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv) outbreak in
swine may be attributable, at least in part, to feed is another example of
uncertain risk from food and feed. Among many possible solutions to these, and
other, food system concerns are demands for increased regulatory inspection and
clearer source labeling on consumers’ packages, more commonly known as COOL or
Country Of Origin Labeling.
Before
addressing either of those approaches, I would first like to provide a bit of
context around our current food and agriculture system and what that implies
for how either increased inspection or COOL could be effectively implemented.
Everyone
realizes that we are sustained by a global food and agriculture system, but it
is often hard to conceptualize how global it really is. In the first four months of this year,
January through April, we imported food and raw agricultural products from more
than 179 countries with a total value of over $48 billion and weighing over 26
million metric tons.
When
we focus on food items classified as “consumer oriented”, which are products close
to the form in which consumers would purchase them and not intermediate
products like raw cocoa beans, we imported $23.5 billion and nearly 11 million
metric tons of these products in the same four months. That is roughly 75 pounds per person in
the U.S. for the first four months of the year or over half a pound per day. So at a basic level, we are always
eating foods that come from around the world as well as those from around the
block, and that is something that has been steadily growing over the last
decade.
In
2004, our imports of “consumer oriented” products were only $12 billion and 8
million tons or about 56 pounds per person in the first four months of the
year.
Those
imports come from a broad range of facilities, with over 6,800 USDA-FSIS
approved domestic facilities and over 250 approved foreign facilities while
over 81,000 domestic and 115,000 firms are registered with the FDA to supply
food to the U.S.
A
significant challenge any consumer faces is figuring out the origin of each
ingredient in any particular meal, but it is easier to understand where it
could have come from.
If
your lunch today was a cheeseburger, French fries and milk, the last two are
fairly
straightforward. We are a big
producer of both fluid milk and frozen French fries, with only five countries
exporting frozen French fries to the US and five countries exporting fluid milk In both cases the dominant
source is Canada.
That
doesn’t necessarily mean that all components of these food items are
domestically sourced, however, as Canada, Chile and Mexico have historically
been exporters of salt to the U.S. that may be on the French Fries and the
vitamins added to the milk are primarily imported from China and a few other countries. The cheeseburger is a bit more
complicated as the bun, burger, cheese, tomato, lettuce, pickle, onion,
ketchup, mustard and seasoning, ten consumer level items, can contain 75 or
more individual ingredients. Last year those ingredients were
imported to some degree from over 55 countries.
That
means that, including domestic sourcing, the burger has billions of possible
combinations of country of origin for its various ingredients.
While
any specific burger obviously has a dramatically smaller range of sourcing
options, this simple lunch illustrates both the complexity of the food system
and the hurdles of country of origin labeling. If it is winter, the lettuce and
tomato are usually imported from Mexico and Central America. The ground beef is
often a mix of domestic and imported sources, from Australia and other sources,
to meet quality demands. The bun, ketchup, mustard and seasoning usually
include imported ingredients from a number of countries, especially since many
spices don’t grow in our climate. While a company could verify what the country
of origin was for each ingredient, under COOL the challenge becomes how to
label and where to put this information?
This
is further complicated by the fact that sources, especially for seasonal
ingredients, may change several times a year. Ingredients may also be comingled
in entirely different ways in a relatively short time frame based on
availability, cost or quality parameters.
Clearly,
accurate and informative labeling on country of origin is thus a challenge.
With
the increasing use of web based solutions, the only reasonable option might be
to provide the information in something like a QR Code that you see on many
consumer products that would take the consumer to a website for details that
cannot be reasonably provided on the label.
Whatever
the solution, including the potential of reducing sourcing complexity to make
COOL more easily achievable, there is an additional expense that would have to
be added to the retail cost of the product, and consumers will ultimately bear
the burden of the increased cost of foods reaching their table.
Patty Lovera, Assistant Director, Food
& Water Watch
My
name is Patty Lovera, and I am the
assistant director of Food & Water
Watch, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization.
Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on this
important topic.
Introduction
The
United States is increasingly reliant on
imported food. The U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) reports that from 2000
through 2011, the percentage of food consumed
in the United States that was
imported rose from 9 percent to over
16 percent, and food imports increased by
an average of 10 percent each year for
seven years.
China
is a growing supplier of the United
State’s food imports. China is the largest
agricultural economy in the world and
one of the biggest agricultural exporters.
It is
the world’s leading producer of many
foods Americans eat: apples, tomatoes, peaches,
potatoes, garlic, sweet potatoes, pears,
peas —the list goes on and on.
It
is also a leading producer of many of
the inputs used to make processed food, for
example ascorbic acid, or vitamin C,
producing about 80 percent of the world
supply.
But
the poorly controlled expansion of China’s
economy has often been fueled by excess
pollution, treacherous working conditions, and
foods and products that pose significant risks
to consumers in China and worldwide.
China is
often described as home to a Wild
West business environment that allows food
manufacturers and processors to cut
corners, sell tainted food products and rely
on adulteration to maximize their
competitive advantage.
Food
safety problems in China have been making headlines
around the world for quite a while, especially
after several rounds of publicity
concerning contamination of foods with a
chemical, normally used to make plastic,
called melamine. The chemical has been intentionally
added to different food products in
China, usually to try to artificially increase the
nitrogen content in attempt to pass
tests for protein levels.
In 2007, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) received
reports 17,000 pet illnesses, including 4,000
dog and cat deaths, believed to be
the result of melamine contamination in
imported Chinese gluten used to make
pet food.
Sixty million packages
of pet food were recalled in the United
States.
The
potential health impacts were not necessarily
limited to pet food, however, because
some of the melamine-‐contaminated pet food was
redirected to hog farms. Thousands of hogs
that ate the contaminated food were
put to death in an effort to
keep melamine-‐contaminated meat from
entering the food supply.
But
the FDA and USDA still allowed 56,000
hogs that ate melamine‐tainted pet food to be
processed into pork, which was then
sold at supermarkets.
By
2008, the FDA had identified melamine
in imported wheat gluten and rice protein
from China (used in pet food),
prompting rejections of 44 percent and 32
percent of these products, respectively.
While
the FDA stopped these shipments, pet food imports from China
to rise and reached 79 million pounds
in 2010.
Pet food turned out
to be only the tip of the melamine iceberg. Because
melamine was widely used in China to
adulterate dairy products such as milk
powder, processed food products including candy,
hot cocoa, flavored drinks and, most
tragically, infant formula contained the chemical.
An
infant formula scandal erupted just before
the 2008 Beijing Olympics and ultimately an estimated
300,000 infants and children in China were
sickened by melamine; more than 12,000 were
hospitalized.
At least
six children died.
While
the melamine may be the most widely covered
Chinese food safety scandal, unfortunately it was
not an isolated incident. International media
sources routinely cover food safety problems
originating in China, ranging from
widespread smuggling of products like honey to
avoid tariffs and food safety restrictions,
mislabeled products “transshipped” through another
country but produced in China, and importing
countries discovering violations of pesticide or
other food safety regulations. A 2013 report
by a food industry analyst found that
among reported food violations in Chinese products,
the most frequent cause was pesticides, followed
by pathogen contamination. The report cited 32
pesticides found in laboratory testing of
Chinese foods, mostly in produce, fruit
and spices and noted that “economically
motivated adulteration” is a persistent
issue in food production in China.
U.S.
Food Imports From China: After joining the World Trade
Organization 2001, China’s food exports to the United States tripled
to 4.1 billion pounds of food in 2012.
In
addition to Chinese firms exporting to
the United States, U.S. food and
agribusiness companies have capitalized on
China’s cheap labor costs and weak regulations,
hoping to sell to a growing class
of Chinese consumers and export to the
United States.
The millions of pounds
of imports from China represent a
considerable portion of the food eaten by
U.S. consumers. For example, in 2011 eighty percent of the tilapia Americans
ate came from the 382.2 million pounds of imports from China. The
United States imported 367 million gallons of apple juice from China amounting
to almost half (49.6 percent) of U.S. consumption. The 70.7 million pounds of cod imported from China amounted
to just more than half (51 percent) of U.S. consumption. The 217.5 million pounds of imported
garlic was 31.3 percent of U.S. consumption.
The 39.3 million pounds of frozen
spinach represented 11 percent of U.S. consumption. Other Chinese exports include processed foods and food
ingredients, products which most consumers purchase without considering where
they came from. China is a leading
supplier to the United States of ingredients like xylitol, used as a sweetener
in candy, and sorbic acid, a preservative. China supplies around 85 percent of U.S. imports of
artificial vanilla, as well as many vitamins that are frequently added to
food products, like folic acid and thiamine. By 2007, 90 percent of America’s vitamin C supplements came
from China, and by 2010, China supplied the United States with 88 million
pounds of candy. The United States
also imported
102 million pounds of sauces,
including soy sauce; 81 million pounds of spices; 79 million pounds of dog and
cat food; and 41 million pounds of
pasta and baked goods from China in 2010.
China’s food safety system: Chinese officials have readily
acknowledged the country’s food system as “grim.” The country’s decentralized and overlapping regulatory
system has not been able to address China’s sprawling food-processing
industry. Repeated government
efforts to reform food safety rules have so far failed to stem the tide of
adulterated food. After a major
food safety law from 2009 went into effect, a professor at the Chinese Academy
of Governance stated that poor coordination between agencies, lackluster
enforcement and inadequate government oversight hindered the enforcement of
food safety laws. It remains to be
seen if an overhaul of the food safety system, announced in 2012, will manage
to coordinate efforts government-wide and tighten food safety standards.
Reports on food safety problems since
2009 yield a long list of problems in both the domestic food supply and
exported products. One persistent
trend is “economically motivated adulteration” or what has been described as a
culture of adulteration in China’s agricultural sector. Melamine contamination in Chinese food
continues to be a problem, with a crackdown on melamine in milk powder in 2010
resulting in 96 arrests and 26 public officials being fired and U.S. regulators
finding high levels of
Melamine in a dog food shipment in
January 2011.
After increased attention to the
problem of melamine, some Chinese dairy producers appear to have switched to a
new protein adulterant that is even more difficult to detect – hydrolyzed
leather protein made from scraps of animal skins.
Even veterinary drugs banned in China
–such as clembuterol, administered to animals to give them leaner
meat and pinker skin –remain widely used in China despite years of documented
consumer illnesses from residues in meat and organs, and controversies over
athletes avoiding meat for fear of testing positive for the performance
enhancing drug.
Since 2009, the Chinese
government has made a point of making public displays of enforcing food safety
rules, inspecting food facilities and punishing people connected with tainted
food.
News reports frequently reference
millions of inspections of facilities and frequent
“crackdowns” on particular
products. A search of news reports
reveals a variety of enforcement efforts.
The scandal over melamine –
contaminated infant formula led to the
execution of two people and prison terms for dairy company
executives.
In 2011, industry and commerce
authorities reported 62,000 cases of substandard food, leading to 43,000 unlicensed
operations being shut down and 251 cases being sent to the judicial system.
A 2011 crackdown on food safety
violations resulted in 2,000 arrests and 4,900 businesses being closed.
The Chinese news
agency Xinhua reported in June 2012
that authorities shut down 5,700 unlicensed
food businesses and discovered 15,000 cases
of “substandard food”
so far that year.• In early
May 2013, news reports described a Chinese
government campaign to break up a fake
meat operation, leading to arrests of more
than 900 people accused of passing
more than $1 million of rat meat as
mutton. Ironically, the discovery of
thousands
of dead pigs in the Huangpu River was actually
described in some media reports as “an encouraging step forward in Chinese public
health,” because it indicated that rather than sell diseased animals into the food
supply, producers dumped them into the
river But
despite the concerted effort to show that the
government is tough on
food safety violators, problems persist.
A small sample of food
safety problems: In 2010, a scandal erupted
over the use of food coloring and bleach
to plump up old peas so they would
appear fresh. Authorities detected plasticizers, chemicals linked
to immune reproductive
system damage, in samples of a leading
brand of distilled white liquor
Testing by Greenpeace
of 18 varieties of tea found that
every ample contained
at least three different kinds of
pesticides. 12 of the samples showed
traces of banned pesticides.
In September 2012, FDA
refused 10 shipments of canned mushrooms from
China due to
pesticide contamination, resulting in the
Chinese government halting exports of canned mushrooms
to the United States. China Central Television reported in 2012
that testing of preserved fruit from
16 different companies found excessive pigments,
bleaching agents and preservatives, well as
incorrect expiration dates. The Xinhua News
Agency reported in 2012 wholesale vegetable dealers
in Handong -province were found
spraying with formaldehyde, presumably to preserve them during
transport without refrigeration. A 2012 report noted that fish vendors
in Beijing were using a chemical used for
temporary dental fillings to tranquilize fish during
transport. In May 2013,
officials in Guangdong Province, announced excessive
levels of cadmium in over 100 batches
of rice. In December 2013, a Chinese
government official announced that eight million
acres of farmland in China was so polluted that it
should not be used for growing crops. Five
strains of influenza have emerged in China in the
last 17 years. In 2013, China had 115 human
highly pathogenic avian flu cases in humans,
including 25 deaths. Chinese consumers are not confident about their domestic
food supply A found food safety is a major concern
for almost 70 percent of Chinese consumers,
and there are regular reports
of Chinese tourists emptying store shelves in
other countries in search of infant formula
not produced in China.
Another recurring theme is the lack of transparency. In China’s food safety enforcement system
It lacks the transparency necessary to warn the
public about dangerous products or deter
dangerous food-processing
practices. The USDA reports that the
Chinese government zealously guards the
food safety data it collects, making
it difficult to impartially evaluate China’s
food safety performance. In 2010, some
officials criticized regional authorities that
publicized a widespread case of
pesticide adulteration rather than obeying the
“unspoken rule” of keeping food safety problems
hidden from the public. The father of
one child sickened by melamine-‐tainted milk powder was
jailed, and eventually paroled, for his activism
on the issue.
U.S. Regulation of Chinese Food Imports: U.S. oversight of
Chinese food processors has not remotely kept pace
with the growth in imports. Though the- Food and
Drug Administration prevented 9,000 unsafe Chinese
products from entering the country
between 2006 and 2010, it is not because
of vigilant inspection at U.S- borders and
ports. The agency’s low inspection rate less
than 2 percent of imported produce,
processed food and seafood almost guarantees
that unsafe Chinese products are-making their
way into American grocery stores. Other
importers of food from China have instituted more
intensive testing regimes for Chinese
imports. From 2004 to 2009, Japan tested between 15 and
18 percent of food products from China, and up
to 38 percent of frozen vegetables.
In 2007, the FDA’s director of the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition stated
that the growing Chinese food exports have
“outstretched and outgrown the regulatory
system for imports in the U.S.” During
the melamine-‐tainted pet
food crisis, it took the FDA one month even identify
their FDA inspectors to be stationed in
China, and the FDA
opened its first office in 2008.
However, the few FDA inspectors in China were overwhelmed by the
sheer size of the nation’s food
production, including an estimated 1 million
food-‐processing companies.
Between 2001 and
2008, the FDA inspected 46 food firms
in China — less than six a year.
After the spate of import scandals, the
FDA increased inspections, but still only conducted 13
food inspections in China from June
2009 to June 2010. In fiscal year
2012, FDA conducted 10 inspections of food
facilities in China
Meat and poultry
imports are the responsibility of
the U.S. Department of griculture. Until 2009, FSIS
conducted in‐depth
annual onsite audits of countries eligible to export
meat,
poultry and egg products to the United States. The department recently announced that in
2009 it made a major change to this
system by ending annual visits to
exporting countries, and instead starting
to rely on a “Self-‐Reporting Tool” for
countries as a substitute to annual
audit visits. With this change, USDA
began conducting audit visits every three
years instead of annually and
the agency stopped the practice of
publishing the audit results of individual
foreign meat, poultry, egg plants that
exported products to the United States.
Poultry: The USDA’s
approach
to China’s interest in exporting poultry
products to the United States offers
a telling example of how the pressure
to increase trade can leave food
safety concerns as a
lower priority. Currently, States does not
import poultry for human consumption from
China. U.S. agribusinesses have invested
heavily in Chinese chicken production and
processing both to feed Chinese consumers
and as a future export platform to
U.S. consumers and they have been working to
get USDA approval Chinese poultry exports
to the United States. In 2006 the USDA
finalized China’s request to begin exporting
processed chicken to United States the
very same day as a visit from
China’s president. This action
apparently prompted China to resume negotiations
over lifting its ban on American beef, instituted in
2003 after the discovery of mad cow
disease in the state of Washington. Despite the Bush
Administration’s public blessing of
Chinese chicken, the USDA’s internal inspection
reports of Chinese poultry facilities showed
egregious food safety problems, including mishandling raw chicken
throughout the processing areas, failing to
perform E. coli and Salmonella testing,
and routinely using dirty tools and
equipment. As these internal reports emerged,
Congress refused to implement the Bush
Administration proposal, effectively maintaining
a ban on Chinese poultry imports. China
contended the U.S. prohibition-against its chicken, produced
in unsafe plants with insufficient-
inspection, was an illegal trade barrier.
The World Trade Organization agreed in
September 2010
The same month, China announced it would impose high
tariffs on American chicken products for allegedly
being priced cheaply In January 2011,
Chinese President Hu Jintao
again visited the United States, cementing
tens of billion of dollars-in trade deals with the Obama
Administration. Shortly after this visit, the USDA announced new steps it
had taken to honor China’s request to
export chicken to the United States. Currently, the
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is working through
the steps to approve China as an exporter of
poultry-products to the United States.
In August 2013, USDA declared that the
Chinese government’s inspection system -for poultry-processing
plants was equivalent to USDA inspection, thereby clearing
the way for certain chicken-processing facilities in China
to be able to export poultry products
to the United States. The
Chinese government must
certify plants that are eligible to
export to the United States
before shipments can begin. In December 2013, USDA stated
that China’s inspection system
for poultry slaughter is not
equivalent to USDA inspection. But it is widely
believed that the ultimate goal of the
poultry industry is to have this equivalence
determination made so that products-from
Chinese-‐origin birds
can- be exported to the United States. The processed -poultry that could
eventually arrive in the United States are
supposed to be made in Chinese plants
from birds that have been sent from
“approved” sources, including the States or
Canada, but not China. But without stationing
USDA inspectors in
Chinese processing plants, it will be virtually impossible to verify
that these products are made
from birds from approved sources rather than Chinese
producers. There are also concerns about the potential for processed poultry
products from China to end up in school
cafeterias. While the USDA’s National School Lunch Program does source
domestic product, most schools also procure food from private vendors. These purchases
are supposed to source domestic product to the maximum extent
possible.” In addition to cost pressure that could
drive school systems to source
Chinese processed poultry, the definition used to define U.S. product for school lunches also presents
a pathway for Chinese processed poultry to end up in schools.
Because the school lunch-standard for a
U.S. product is that at least 51 percent of the product must be domestic,
a processed food item that contains chicken as well as other ingredients could contain Chinese
processed poultry and still meet the definition of a U.S. product.
The FY 2015 agriculture
appropriations bill being considered by the -House of
Representatives currently includes a
prohibition on purchase of Chineseprocessed
poultry products for any of the USDA’s
nutrition programs. This follows widespread
public opposition to
the idea of importing poultry
products from China, including petition
signed- by over 300,000 people urging
Congress to- prevent China chicken products
from reaching U.S. supermarket shelves or
school cafeterias.
Pet Treats: The FDA
reports from 2003, when China first
approached the USDA about poultry exports,
to 2011, the volume of pet food
exports (regulated by the FDA) to
the United States from China has grown
85-‐fold.”
Since 2007, thousands of American dogs have
fallen ill or died after eating chicken
jerky treats made in China. In August 2012, four months after visiting Chinese
processing plants that export pet treats
to the United States, the FDA published
inspection reports that
revealed that the factories refused to
allow U.S.- inspectors to collect samples
for independent analysis. Ultimately, testing done
by the New York Department of
Agriculture and Markets found contamination of
some of the treats with residues of
an undisclosed antibiotic, triggering voluntary
recalls of the products by the
manufacturers. Just last month, the FDA released an
update on this continuing health threat to
U.S. pets. As of May16, 2014, the
agency had received 4800 reports of illnesses, involving
5600 dogs, 24 cats, and three people, and over
1000 canine deaths linked to consumption of
jerky pet treats from China.
The most common problems reported
were gastrointestinal illness and kidney problems. Despite the long-running- investigation
and growing public awareness of this problem, the
has not identified a cause for the illnesses and- deaths.
Recently, some observers of global
food industry have urged the FDA to look not only
at finished products, but also
further up the supply chain of ingredients. In
particular, they cited the possibility that leather-‐processing byproducts,
tainted with chromium, were being used to
extract proteins that are added
to poultry feed.
While two major producers of chicken
jerky treats did announce a voluntary recall
of their products in early 2013, both have
resumed sales of these products. One of the
companies has switched to American poultry for its
product, while the other continues to produce jerky
treats in China but has committed,
through the settlement of a class action lawsuit
by pet owners, to perform more testing
of the ingredients and finished product it
uses and to source poultry from just
one supplier and one factory.
Victims of tainted pet treats have been working to
draw attention to this problem and demand action to prevent
any more pets from falling- ill. They organized several petitions
urging major pet food manufacturers to
recall their products and are currently
targeting retailers to urge them to stop
selling pet treats imported from China.
Recently Petco and
Petsmart announced their intention stop selling
pet treats from China over the course of
the next year, and the Canadian pet food
store chain, Global Pet Foods announced
its intention to stop carrying pet treats
made in China.
Inadequate Labeling Requirements: One tool that U.S. consumers
is labeling, but in the case of both processed
poultry products- and pet treats, inadequate labeling rules
leave consumers without all the information
they need if they wish to avoid
products from China. Thanks to federal labeling requirements,
country of origin labeling is required for beef,
pork, lamb, chicken, goat meat, wild and farm-‐raised fish and
shellfish, perishable agricultural (fruit and
vegetables), peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and
macadamia nuts. But these labeling rules do not
apply to processed forms of these foods, and the SDA’s definition-of processing
is far too broad, which excludes many foods
from the labeling requirement. This exemption
includes processed forms of poultry that could soon
becoming from Chinese plants. Pet
food and treats are not covered by
country of origin labeling
requirements that apply to human food. This
makes it very difficult for consumers to know-if these products were produced
in or contain ingredients from China.
The Customs Department oversees country
of origin claims on products and relies on-a standard that the country where a “substantial
transformation” of raw materials into a finished-
product takes place is the country of
origin. In the case of-pet treats, the
substantial transformation could indeed be the United
States,- resulting in a U.S.‐origin label
even if the product contains ingredients from China. There is no
requirement for manufacturers to list the country of origin for
ingredients in their products1
The Federal Trade Commission does regulate use
of “Made in USA” labeling claims and
relies on a standard that “major components” product
must be of U.S. origin for a product
to bear a “Made in USA” label.
But as the melamine-contamination of pet food
illustrates, even minor ingredients that are adulterated can
pose a health threat and, increasingly, these
kinds ingredients come from outside the United
States.
U.S. Policies to address unsafe imports:
The World Trade Organization’s
Agreement on Agriculture has been a failure
in the United States and has encouraged the
growth of export platforms-in places like
China that benefit from low wages and
weak regulatory standards,-putting consumers
around the world at risk. Congress
and the Obama administration must revisit the current
trade agenda to make public health, environmental
standards and consumer safety the highest priorities
when making decisions about policy. Specifically: The USDA
should restart the process of determining if China’s poultry
inspection system is equivalent to the U.S. system
and conduct an entirely new investigation
before allowing Chinese poultry products to be exported
to the United States.
The USDA needs the
resources to increase current levels of
inspection of imported meat and poultry. If
China
is ever able to export processed
poultry products from
approved sources, USDA inspectors should
be stationed in Chinese plants to
ensure that Chinese-‐origin
birds are not being processed into products
destined for the United States. The
FDA needs the resources to effectively inspect the growing
volume of food imports from China and
other countries. Congress and the Obama Administration
must instruct and provide adequate funding for the
FDA to increase import inspections and to
increase the rigor of those inspections
to include testing for
pathogens and chemical, pesticide and drug residues,
and to increase inspection of processed
food ingredients. The FDA needs the resources
to conduct inspections in food facilities in
China, rather than relying on third--party certifications of
the safety practices used by exporting
firms. The use of third-party certifications in China has already been
shown to be questionable in the
certifications used for organic products and in
pilot projects on aquaculture conducted by the FDA.
This type of system should not be used as a
substitute for safety inspection by U.S. government inspectors.
FDA should block the import
of jerky pet treats from China until a cause
of illnesses and deaths has been identified. FDA
should require that any results that show contamination or
adulteration of pet treats or ingredients from testing conducted
by manufacturers be reported to the agency’s Reportable-Food
Registry, required by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
The USDA should close the loopholes in the current
country of origin labeling rules and expand
to processed meats, fruits and vegetables.
This labeling could be
modeled on existing regulations for ground beef, which allow a “shotgun”
label for products that may contain covered
commodities from multiple sources Congress should require mandatory country
of origin labeling for foods currently covered
existing law, to require basic manufacturing
information about where, and by what
company, processed foods were produced.
For pet
food and treats, FDA should work with the Customs
Department and the Federal Trade Commission to
develop labeling requirements that not only
require disclosure of the
country where the product was made, but also the
origin of major similar to how juice-labeling provides
the source of juice concentrate even if
the product is reconstituted in the United
States June 17, 2014
Testimony of
Christopher J. D’Urso
Student and Consumer Advocate
Introduction: According
to President John F. Kennedy in his “Special Message to the Congress on
Protecting the Consumer Interest”, “If the consumer is unable to choose on an
informed basis, then his dollar is wasted, his health and safety may be
threatened, and the national interest suffers” (Kennedy). Unfortunately, this
key tenet of consumer rights has been undermined by weak country of origin
labeling (COOL) laws.
Under the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Farm Bills of 2002 and
2008, imported products must be clearly labeled with country of origin.
However, these laws contain a disturbing exemption which has been exploited and
misconstrued by businesses: any imported product that is processed in the U.S.
is not required to have COOL.
Consequently, the majority of products remain unlabeled
(Jurenas). As imports continue to increase, these inadequate laws not only compromise
the consumer’s right to know but also pose a threat to the public health and
economy of the U.S. Thus, COOL must be required for all food products (defined
as both human and pet), pharmaceuticals, and dietary supplements.
Issues with Current COOL Laws: The aforementioned COOL laws do not define what constitutes
processing. Thus, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, which enforces the Tariff Act
for pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements, has broadly defined processing to
be any method which results in the substantial transformation of a product
whereby the product experiences a change in name, character, or use (Country of
Origin Marking). On the other hand, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
which enforces the Farm Bills for food products, has defined processing to be
any type of cooking, curing, mixing, smoking, or restructuring (e.g.
emulsifying and extruding). The interpretations of these agencies are highly
subjective, loosely defined, and possibly contradictory. For instance, AMS has
broadly construed their interpretation of processing to include mixing peas
with carrots, roasting peanuts or pecans, and breading meat (Jurenas).
Equally disturbing, chicken that is slaughtered in the U.S.
can be exported to China for
processing and subsequently re-exported to the U.S. as a
nugget or soup without COOL (Strom).
As a result of such loose standards, only 11% of pork, 30%
of beef, 39% of chicken, and 40% of fruits and vegetables may be required to
have COOL (Jurenas). The balances are either produced in the U.S. or imported
and processed in the U.S. However, consumers will not know which is the reason.
Therefore, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has acknowledged that COOL
exemptions “may be too broadly drafted” (quoted. in Jurenas).
Imports to the US:
Compounding the issue of weak COOL laws, imports in pharmaceuticals,
dietary supplements, and foods have reached all-time highs and are rapidly
increasing. In the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, growth in the prescription
drug market has flattened and the rate of return on pharmaceutical investments
has dropped to just above the cost of capital. Coupled with demand for
lower-cost products, these trends have caused a relocation of production to
less developed nations such as China and India where the cost of formulation of
an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) can be 15-40% cheaper.
Consequently, imports of pharmaceuticals increased by 13%
annually from
2004 to 2011. Especially distressing, 10-15% of all food,
including 60% of fruits and vegetables and 80% of seafood are imported
(Pathway).
