September 30, 1999

Let me begin by thanking you for the invitation to be here and for the tour of your lab facilities. Many of you know that I have a long standing interest in food safety issues and it pleases me to see the great progress in food safety and productivity that was demonstrated earlier.

I also want you to know how much I appreciate the work of the NFPA. We share many of the same concerns, and where we do not yet have a meeting of the minds on certain policy questions, I have generally found your organization to be thoughtful, sincere, and measured in its presentation of its views.

I have been asked to address several issues of particular interest to you, and I will do so in a moment. Let me begin, however, by saying that I view our food system with the great respect that it deserves. Americans enjoy the most abundant, affordable, and let me hasten to add, safest, food supply in the world. That said, we can do better. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showed that the incidence of food borne illness may be twice as high as previously believed. This is not cause for immediate panic or alarm. But it is a warning to us all to look at ways to improve food safety.

Our magnificent health care system is saving lives that would have been lost a just a short time ago. Cancer patients survive. Persons with HIV infections live. Persons with failing organs now get transplants and live. The elderly live longer because they receive successful treatments for conditions that previously would have been fatal. Infants and young children who may have perished in an earlier time are now brought along by a variety of medical miracles. All of this success, however, comes with a caution flag. The CDCïs report states that these vulnerable persons may soon comprise as much as a fourth of our population. They are particularly susceptible to the severe consequences of a bout with food borne disease. Another complication is the advent of new strains of disease, some of which are resistant to antibiotics and other currently effective therapies.

A hallmark of the modern food supply is the variety of sources from which it is derived. Approximately 40 percent of our fresh fruit and more than 15 percent of our fresh vegetables come from outside of the United States. Many processed foods also arrive from foreign destinations. We can readily appreciate the benefits of a global supply of food, yet we have been slow to acknowledge that this also is a key pathway of exposure to microbial contaminants. American consumers have come to expect and enjoy the benefits of year round availability of a wide variety of foods, and we should do what we can to enhance the stream of commerce in food. That goal is best achieved with a proper balance of governmental oversight and enforcement that assures that the market for safe foods is not harmed by the poor practices or outright willful misconduct of a few.

Let me now turn to some of the specific matters that you have asked me to address.

The first of these is irradiation. This is a matter on which I believe we are in general agreement. I know that the NFPA has met with my staff and they are in the process of reviewing the petitions on labeling and food additives pending at the FDA and USDA. I intend to communicate my support for the expeditious consideration of these matters to the appropriate officials at each of the food safety agencies. My constituents in Michigan have not been immune from food borne illnesses, and I am determined to see to it that proven technologies, such as "cold pasteurization", are employed to the extent called for by good food safety practices. The FDAïs Joe Levitt has stated that food additive petitions relating to food safety applications would receive expedited review by the agency. The petition to approve irradiation for certain ready to eat foods certainly fits that criterion.

I am also interested in learning more about what can be done to enhance the degree of coordination between FDA and the USDAïs Food Safety and Inspection Service in those instances when they must work together. I am also looking closely at the threshold issue: is the current food additive petition process appropriate for determinating the appropriate uses of irradiation? Other approaches, such as incorporation of irradiation in good manufacturing practices or Hazardous and Critical Control Point standards, may be better ways of expanding the uses of this technology.

Finally, the expanded use of irradiation depends mostly on consumer acceptance. In that regard, do our existing labeling requirements serve as a barrier to consumer acceptance of irradiation? In other words, can we notify someone that the food they will eat has been cold pasteurized in a less alarming way than currently done? I am not sure that the complete elimination of any form of labeling requirement is today achievable or desirable.

Genetically modified foods ("GMFs") represent true innovation and improvement in the food supply. They are now at great risk because of alarmist tactics that are threatening to spread across the world. The Europeans have adopted policies that will set back the advent of GMFs on that continent for years. Certain processors in Japan and Mexico have done the same thing. Perhaps most disappointing is the decision of a few companies here to stop buying GMFs for ingredients in the products they make. This gives credence to the alarmists and critics of GMFs, and is a special concern because the NFPA and other food industry representatives have made science-based policies a cornerstone on almost every question.

As most of you know, I introduced H.R. 830, the Imported Food Safety Act. This bill is intended to address the fact that we know precious little about how imported food is produced, processed, stored, and transported. Our current system of inspection of imported food has been examined and found inadequate by the GAO and others. There are some clear differences in the safety risk of imported foods compared to those grown domestically, and H.R. 830 takes these differences into account. The bill would improve the authority available to FDA and make it similar to that currently exercised by the USDA with respect to the meat and poultry products under its jurisdiction. The bill also provides needed resources to get the job done in the form of carefully limited and directed user fees. There are numerous precedents for user fees. Properly drawn, they can provide a reliable source of funds for the agency while not presenting an undue burden on foreign commerce. The bill also contains a strong, private sector oriented approach toward research aimed at improving techniques of detecting, measuring, and assessing food borne microbial and pesticide risks. I would urge you to revisit this proposal with an open mind. One alternative scenario is that we do nothing and then there is a terrible food borne disease outbreak that is traced to imports. While I hope that this never happens, a catastrophe could create a backlash of public opinion about imported foods and an outcry for harsh action. In view of the fact that less than one percent of fresh fruits and vegetables are inspected, the borders could be virtually shut down pending more comprehensive testing. We need to keep looking at this matter, and I am hopeful that there will come a day and time when we can achieve a meeting of the minds on this issue.

In the meantime, I want to express my support for the Presidentïs food safety initiative. The Administration has noticeably increased its support for food safety programs. Though still not ideal in every respect, the food safety initiative represents real progress in the achievement of a safer food supply. I will encourage the President to do even more and I hope that you will continue to provide your support to this critical endeavor.

I am pleased to have worked with NFPAïs representatives on the industryïs proposal for a food additive user fee. I believe the Administration has missed a real opportunity to obtain authority to create a program that could yield great benefits for industry and the FDA. My criterion for the fee is that it be something that the affected industry and FDA can agree on in terms of its structure. The Administrationïs proposal contained a facilities fee in addition to the application fee and therefore I do not support it. I hope that they will revisit this matter, and work with organizations like yours to obtain that which is achievable.

Finally, let me comment on the EPAïs implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This law was unanimously approved by the House and Senate over three years ago. Now American agriculture finds itself in an unforseen regulatory quagmire. My paramount interest at the moment concerns the fact that there are a lot of crops that, while technically legal, are potentially unmarketable if they become the subject of scare tactics by EPA or interest groups. I believe Carol Brownerïs announcement on August 2 regarding two of the most widely used pesticides was ill timed as well as procedurally and substantively questionable. If these pesticides are dangerous they should be removed from the market. This assessment, however, should be done in the science-based manner established in the FQPA.

EPAïs failure to develop and implement in a timely manner the review policies contemplated in the FQPA has been a disservice to the American farmer, processor, and consumer. I will continue to work with all affected parties to achieve a fair and speedy solution to the complex web of implementation issues that remain ahead of EPA. I am open to a number of approaches in this regard and am assessing all options available to me. I have not yet cosponsored the Pombo bill, which in any event is unlikely to provide a timely remedy for some of the real risks faced by this yearsï crops. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important matter.