Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
The combined efforts of the food industry and government regulatory agencies often are credited with making the U.S. food supply among the safest in the world. Nonetheless, public health officials have estimated that each year in the United States, many millions of people become sick, and thousands die from foodborne illnesses caused by any one of a number of microbial pathogens and other contaminants. At issue is whether the current food safety system has the resources, authority, and structural organization to safeguard the health of American consumers, who spend more than $1 trillion on food each year. Also at issue is whether federal food safety laws, first enacted in the early 1900s, have kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in the food production, processing, and marketing sectors since then.
In the 111th Congress, several food safety bills have been introduced, and wide-ranging legislation (H.R. 2749) has passed the House. The Senate also has reported a comprehensive bill (S. 510). Both of these bills mainly focus on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) food regulation rather than that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, which has oversight of most meat and poultry). The bills would use the agency and its existing FDA authorities rather than create a new food safety structure or authorities. H.R. 2749 is a revised version of H.R. 759, and was amended and approved by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on June 10, 2009. The full committee further amended and approved H.R. 2749 on June 17, 2009, and the full House approved the bill on July 30, 2009, with a number of additional amendments intended to satisfy the concerns of agricultural interests. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee amended and approved S. 510, and later reported it in December 2009. In mid-July 2010, potential amendments to the bill were being discussed, aimed at addressing issues of continued interest to various Senators. In August 2010, a group of Senate leaders released a manager’s amendment to S. 510. Senate floor action has been held up by objections about the projected cost of the bill, as well as attempts to further amend it.
Food safety legislation is a response to a number of perceived problems with the current food safety system. For example, a growing consensus is that the FDA’s current programs are not proactively designed to emphasize prevention, evaluate hazards, and focus inspection resources on areas of greatest risk to public health. Given its widely acknowledged funding and staffing constraints, and no explicit requirement on the frequency of inspections, the agency rarely visits food manufacturing and other facilities to check sanitary and other conditions. In response, the bills would require (although in different ways) food processing, manufacturing, shipping, and other regulated facilities to conduct an analysis of the most likely safety hazards and to design and implement risk-based controls to prevent them. The bills envision establishment of sciencebased “performance standards” for the most significant food contaminants. To help determine such risks and hazards, the bills propose improvement of foodborne illness surveillance systems.
The bills seek to increase frequency of inspections, tighten record-keeping requirements, extend more oversight to certain farms, and mandate product recalls if a firm fails to do so voluntarily. Major portions of the bills are devoted to more scrutiny of food imports, which account for an increasing share of U.S. consumption; food import shipments would have to be accompanied by documentation that they can meet safety standards that are at least equivalent to U.S. standards. Such certifications might be provided by foreign governments or other so-called third parties accredited in advance. The House and Senate bills differ in how to accomplish these objectives. The bills have provisions for certifying or accrediting laboratories, including private laboratories, to conduct sampling and testing of food for various oversight purposes.
Date of Report: September 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 83
Order Number: R40443
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Foodborne illness-causing bacteria on farms can enter the food supply unless preventive measures are in place to reduce them, either prior to or after harvest. Also of potential risk to the food supply are pesticide residues, animal drugs, and naturally occurring contaminants such as aflatoxin.
There is interest in examining on-farm practices, given continued major outbreaks of foodborne illness involving both domestically produced and imported foods. An example is the case in April-July 2008, when more than 1,000 persons in more than 40 states and Canada were found to be infected with the same unusual strain of bacteria (Salmonella Saintpaul). Most recently, in May 2010, a large-scale recall of more than 550 million shell eggs has been linked to concerns about a nationwide increase in Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) infections.
Food safety experts agree that an effective, comprehensive food safety system should include consideration of potential hazards at the farm level. However, opinions differ on the need for more stringent, government-enforced safety standards for farms, as exist for processors and others in the food chain. This question and others, such as the potential cost of new interventions to producers, taxpayers, and consumers, are at issue as Congress debates food safety legislation.
The lead federal food safety agencies are the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which regulates major species of meat and poultry and some egg products, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which regulates virtually all other foods. Generally, these agencies’ regulatory oversight of foods begins after the farm gate, at slaughter establishments and food handling and manufacturing facilities. However, various activities of these and other federal agencies involved in assuring the safety of the food supply can, and do, have an impact on how farms and ranches raise food commodities.
In the 111th Congress, comprehensive food safety bills are progressing that could affect farmers and ranchers. Wide-ranging legislation (H.R. 2749) passed the House in June 2009. The Senate also has a comprehensive bill (S. 510), which is pending further floor action. The House-passed bill would require the establishment of new standards for the production of some fruits, vegetables, nuts, and fungi. Other provisions of H.R. 2749 that focus more broadly on food safety, such as requiring a new food tracing system and expanding authority for access to records, also could impact on-farm practices. Provisions in S. 510—including a section requiring produce safety standards—also would affect on-farm production.
As both bills have progressed, Congress has continued to modify provisions to address the potential effects of proposed food safety requirements on small farms and food processors, and also on organic, direct-to-market, and sustainable farming operations. For example, although the House Energy and Commerce Committee amended H.R. 2749 to address small-farm concerns, the version passed by the full House in June 2010 contained additional changes addressing agricultural interests. Similarly, the version of S. 510 reported by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in December 2009 was further modified to address small-farm concerns as part of a substitute manager’s amendment agreed to by Senate leaders that was released in August 2010. Despite these changes, farm groups continue to push for additional changes to further address these concerns. .
Date of Report: September 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: RL34612
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Mark E. Manyin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
U.S. beef access to South Korea is one of the outstanding issues in the debate over the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). In 2003, South Korea was the third-largest market for U.S. beef exports, prior to the ban its government imposed after the first U.S. cow infected with mad cow disease, or BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), was discovered. Some Members have stated that congressional consideration of, and support for, KORUS depends on South Korea fully opening its market to U.S. beef. Currently, South Korea allows imports of most U.S. beef products, except those from cattle older than 30 months.
On April 18, 2008, U.S. and South Korean negotiators reached an agreement on the sanitary rules that Korea will apply to beef imports from the United States. It allows for imports of all cuts of U.S. boneless and bone-in beef and certain beef products from cattle, irrespective of age, as long as specified risk materials known to transmit mad cow disease are removed and other conditions are met. Though the U.S. beef industry and U.S. policymakers welcomed this deal, Korean TV coverage and Internet-spread rumors that questioned the safety of U.S. beef resulted in escalating protests and calls for the beef agreement to be renegotiated or scrapped. U.S. officials countered that measures already in place to prevent the introduction of BSE in U.S. cattle herds meet international scientific standards. To address rising public pressure, the Korean government twice pursued talks with the United States to find ways to defuse these concerns without “renegotiating” the beef agreement. This culminated in the June 21, 2008, confirmation by both governments of a “voluntary private sector” arrangement that allows Korean firms to import U.S. beef produced from cattle only under 30 months of age. Both governments view this as a transitional step until Korean consumer confidence in the safety of U.S. beef improves.
Since the resumption of U.S. beef exports in July 2008, U.S. exporters have worked to recapture this key overseas market. Beef exports to South Korea in 2010 are well above last year’s level and may reach one-half of the 2003 level (in value terms). Though Australia is the main competitor, U.S. exporters have gained noticeable market share since the Korean market reopened to U.S. beef. Promotional efforts to rebuild consumer confidence in U.S. beef, aggressive marketing efforts by large store chains, and much lower retail prices for imported beef than for Korean beef account for the continued growth in U.S. beef sales.
On June 26, 2010, President Obama directed Administration officials to work with their Korean counterparts to resolve the beef and auto issues with South Korea by this November’s G-20 meeting in Seoul. He also stated that his intent is to present the KORUS FTA to Congress, likely in 2011. Administration officials have stated that their objective is “to eventually secure full market access for U.S. beef” that reflects South Korea’s recognition that the United States meets international scientific standards. More recent statements have raised the possibility that the Administration may not require achieving this objective before the KORUS FTA is sent to Congress, and instead may seek to secure commitments from South Korea to move in steps toward that goal. Bilateral discussions later this fall are expected to focus on the terms of, and the timetable for, South Korea’s moving to accept all U.S. beef shipments, irrespective of the age of slaughtered cattle, as laid out in the April 2008 agreement. Since this document is separate from the text of the KORUS FTA, it could be amended easily if both countries agree to changes. Korea’s position on the beef issue likely will be shaped by the memory of the size and intensity of the anti-beef agreement protests, which likely have eroded the Korean President’s willingness and ability to accept changes the Obama Administration may seek before submitting the KORUS FTA to Congress.
Date of Report: September 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL34528
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jim Monke
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill) authorizes most federal farm and food policies. It also provides the mandatory funding for many farm bill programs, including the farm commodity programs and some nutrition, conservation, research, bioenergy, and rural development programs. Funding to write the next farm bill will be based on the baseline projection of the cost of these farm bill programs by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and on varying budgetary assumptions about whether programs will continue.
Some farm bill programs have baseline beyond the end of the 2008 farm bill, while others do not. Thirty-seven programs that received mandatory funds during the 2008 farm bill are not assumed to continue from a budgetary perspective because they do not have a budgetary baseline beyond FY2012. If policymakers want to continue these programs in the next farm bill, they will need to pay for the programs with other offsets. Depending on the approach used to estimate a cost to extend the 37 programs for five years, $9 billion or $10 billion of offsets from other sources may be needed. This is about 4% of the $283 billion five-year total cost of the 2008 farm bill when it was enacted, or 11% of the approximately $100 billion five-year cost if the nutrition title is excluded. Finding this level of offsets may be a difficult task in a tight budget environment, especially when many observers believe that the next farm bill might be written within the confines of the existing baseline.
The 37 provisions without baseline beyond FY2012 are spread among 12 of the 2008 farm bill’s 15 titles. The title with the most such provisions is the energy title (8), followed by conservation (5), nutrition (5), and horticulture and organic agriculture (5). Just three provisions—the agricultural disaster assistance program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, each with uncertainty about its future cost—account for nearly 75% of the $9 billion or $10 billion total.
The 2008 farm bill’s authorizations generally expire at the end of FY2012, or with the 2012 crop year for the farm commodity programs. Separate from the funding issue, six farm bill provisions have an expiration date before the end of FY2012. These include the new supplemental agricultural disaster assistance program, and the suspension of term limits that allows some farmers to continue receiving guaranteed farm operating loans. Some tax provisions that are outside the jurisdiction of the agriculture committees were included in the farm bill and also expire early, including a conservation tax deduction and the tariff on imported ethanol.
Date of Report: September 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41433
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the U.S. food supply, which many experts say is among the safest in the world. Nevertheless, critics view this system as lacking the organization, regulatory tools, and resources to adequately combat foodborne illness—as evidenced by a series of widely publicized food safety problems, including concerns about adulterated food and food ingredient imports, and illnesses linked to various types of fresh produce, to peanut products, and to some meat and poultry products.
A number of comprehensive food safety proposals aimed at addressing perceived shortcomings in the U.S. food safety system were introduced but not enacted by the 110th Congress. These included measures to reform the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) oversight of food and other imports, to create a new independent food safety agency, and to impose a variety of new requirements on food manufacturers, handlers, and producers (including farms), such as mandated risk-based safety plans, recordkeeping for product tracing purposes, more rigorous registration requirements, and performance standards. The adequacy of inspection resources also has been at issue, and appropriators have been ramping up funding for the major agencies, particularly FDA.
Bills with similarly broad goals (such as H.R. 759, which was revised and reintroduced in June 2009 as H.R. 2749; H.R. 875; H.R. 1332; and S. 510) re-emerged in the 111th Congress. On the one hand, food safety reform is a relatively complex, controversial matter competing for attention with a long list of domestic priorities. On the other hand, there has been a growing consensus that changes are needed.
Lawmakers took the first step toward new legislation on June 10, 2009, when the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health approved an amended version of H.R. 2749. The full committee approved the bill, with additional changes, on June 17, 2009, and the full House passed a further-modified H.R. 2749 on July 30, 2009. The Senate also has reported a comprehensive bill (S. 510). The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee amended and approved S. 510, and later reported it in December 2009. In mid-July 2010, potential amendments to the bill were being discussed, aimed at addressing issues of continued interest to various Senators. In August 2010, a group of Senate leaders released a manager’s amendment to S. 510. Senate floor action has been held up by objections about the projected cost of the bill, as well as continued attempts to further amend it. (For more details see CRS Report R40443, Food Safety: Selected Issues and Bills in the 111th Congress.)
Date of Report: September 22, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS22600
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
