Food Inspections: How's It Done?

1/19/2000 - BOZEMAN – While the World Trade Organization talks focus attention on whether or not world trade rules are fair, an often overlooked fact is that the safety guidelines for U.S. food are the same whether the food is grown domestically or imported.

That's the good news, says Linda Young, Montana State University economist and trade specialist. However, some people question whether food inspections are adequate to assure that the safety guidelines are met.

How is inspection of our food handled?

Assuring that federal food safety guidelines are followed is the responsibility of two U.S. agencies that inspect agricultural products and procedures, says Young. They are the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration. FSIS inspects meat and poultry. The FDA is in charge of assuring the safety of all other agricultural produce.

One food safety question is whether these agencies have enough staff to adequately inspect all sources of food around the world, and the degree to which they rely on certification by foreign officials. Another issue is whether they inspect for the "right" things. A third issue is whether labeling is adequate for consumers to make informed choices when buying groceries.

Don Smart, director of the FSIS inspection staff, says FSIS staff was responsible for the safety of $3.16 billion pounds of meat and poultry products during calendar year 1998. Of that, about 631.3 million pounds or 20 percent of meat were inspected.

"Many years ago, we had people stationed in these countries who were out all the time inspecting, but because of budget, we have evolved to go out to audit their inspection systems. Budget wasn't the only reason, but it was one of the deciding factors," said Smart.

Documentation of hazards shows that often food hazards begin in the processing and meal preparation stages, says Young. That brings into question whether increasing inspections would be a cost effective way to provide U.S. consumers safer food, when washing produce after purchasing it and thoroughly cooking meat remove many of the documented problems.

Beyond food production facility certifications and random checking of shipments, when either the FSIS or the FDA identifies a company, domestic or foreign, that has a food safety problem, that company must go through extensive recertification and inspection before it puts more food into our system, says Smart.

However, port-of-entry inspections have been termed "ineffective" by the U.S. General Accounting Office, and some inspectors who falsely certified foreign foods entering the United States have been prosecuted.

An April 30, 1998 GAO report on food safety said that by law, the FSIS places the principal burden for safety on the exporting countries by allowing imports only from those countries with food safety systems it deems to be equivalent to the U.S. system, but that the FDA lacks such authority and allows food imports from almost any country, then tries to ensure the safety of imported foods as they arrive at U.S. ports. GAO report RCED-98-103 dated April 4, 1998 said "relying on port-of-entry inspections . . is ineffective."

Even before the GAO report was final, the United States had begun a food safety "initiative" to find ways to make our food system safer.

A parallel concern to food safety regulation enforcement is whether or not the United States inspects for the "right" food safety indicators.

Internationally, the WTO and other trade bodies have officially accepted the idea that food safety standards must be based on science, says Young. However, there are a host of things that some people believe to be unsafe that are not proven unsafe, from bovine growth hormone in milk to genetically modified food ingredients. While there has been opposition to governments unilaterally rejecting imports of agricultural products for reasons that are not based on science, some of the issues are being determined in the board room rather than by governments.

For instance, Gerber Foods announced last July that it was dropping some of its existing corn and soybean suppliers in favor of ones that can produce crops that aren't genetically altered. As a Midwest farmer put it in a Nov. 19, 1999 Wall Street Journal article, "Even when the customer is wrong, the customer is right." So some food safety questions may be settled on the corporate rather than the political playing field.

In addition to these safety concerns, there are issues related to food labeling. This issue focuses on whether what is on a food label is adequate for consumers to make informed choices. An American Dietetic Association Survey report (http://www.eatright.org/pr/press090397c.html) indicated that 59 percent of Americans say they would eliminate an item altogether based on nutrition labeling. However, ADA surveys also indicate that "taste reigns supreme." Most of the choices referred to in the ADA study were low-fat or low-calorie options, but there are movements underway to require labeling of genetically modified ingredients or other factors that may contribute to consumer choice, from organically grown to country-of-origin.

Products not "substantially" processed generally bear country-of-origin labels, except for beef and some fruits, nuts and vegetables.

To make our food more safe, the FDA is funding the development of improved detection systems for pathogens and toxins, both at MSU and other university and commercial laboratories. The FDA's web site says it is focusing on earlier detection of pathogens, particularly in "certain imported and domestic perishable foods." (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/3fs2exec.html).

Go to more feature stories arranged by category.

Send questions or comments to Carol Flaherty, MSU Communications Services, Bozeman, MT 59717 or email Flaherty at carolf@montana.edu.

You are the 8074th person to access this page.