DeLauro Presses USDA on Beef Recall, Animal ID & Country of Origin Labeling

Press Release

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3), chairwoman of the House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered the following opening statement during a subcommittee hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2009 budget for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at which Bruce Knight, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture testified.

At the hearing DeLauro returned attention to USDA's accountability for the historic Hallmark/Westland beef recall; focusing on the potential failure of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which procures food for all federal food assistance programs, including the school lunch program, to provide adequate oversight of the operations at Westland/Hallmark and to ensure food suppliers comply with eligibility and food quality requirements. Additionally, the implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) by September 30, 2008, as well as the National Animal ID program, were discussed at the hearing.

Below is the text of her statement, as prepared for delivery.

The hearing will come to order. Thank you Under Secretary Knight for being here, and Mr. Day, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Link. And, of course, a subcommittee hearing would not be complete without Mr. Steele. Thank you all for joining us today.

I have often said that the Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area carries great responsibility for the safety and health of agriculture, as well as for its economic health and the order of our markets. This became evident several months ago during the historic 143 million pound beef recall involving the Westland/Hallmark plant in Southern California .

As you know, over 50 million pounds of that recalled beef was distributed to the national school lunch program. However, until this recall, a lot of people probably did not realize that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible for procuring commodities for all federal food assistance programs, including the school lunch program.

In addition to procuring these commodities, the Agricultural Marketing Service is responsible for ensuring that the products it buys meet federal purchasing specification and that food suppliers comply with eligibility and food quality requirements. The agency has the authority to develop and revise food safety standards as needed, and in fact, it has worked with Food and Nutrition Service and Food Safety Inspection Service officials, as well as potential vendors, to develop specifications for product formulation, manufacturing, packaging, sampling, and testing, as well as quality assurance provisions.

In general, the Agricultural Marketing Service has higher food safety testing standards than the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) because the agency purchases food for programs that feed infants, children, the elderly, and other immune-compromised persons. For example, for E. coli and Salmonella, the agency has higher safety standards. If raw beef products test positive for these organisms, AMS standards prohibit the delivery of the product, whereas under certain conditions FSIS standards would allow beef products that test positive for these organisms to be used for commercial sale.

Of course, we could have the best standards on paper in the world, but they would become ineffective if an agency is not held accountable for implementing it properly. While a 2005 report from the USDA Office of Inspectors General found that Agricultural Marketing Service coordinates effectively with Food Safety Inspection Service and the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) on food safety, I am concerned about this agency's potential failure to provide adequate oversight of the operations at Westland/Hallmark.

In preparation for this hearing, I wrote Mr. Day asking him to provide the subcommittee with some information about the recall. Among the information I requested included a list of actions Agricultural Marketing Service has taken to ensure that Westland/Hallmark is being held liable for the recall, pursuant to USDA policy. I also asked about the role the agency is playing in the recovery of the 143 million pounds of beef that was recalled.

I want to thank you, Mr. Day, for your timely response to my letter and I look forward to discussing your answers in detail during the Q&A session.

There are, of course, several other important issues to discuss during this hearing. One critical issue is country-of-origin labeling (COOL). In the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, we included a timeline that would lead to the implementation of COOL by September 30, 2008. Unfortunately, USDA missed the first deadline - which was for Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to re-publish a proposed rule for covered commodities (beef, fruits and vegetables) by January 17, 2008. It is almost three months past that deadline, and we are still waiting.

I realize that the provision on COOL in the farm bill represents an agreement that was reached among the various stakeholders and so I understand the USDA may therefore be waiting for the farm bill to pass. However, USDA does not seem to not have a problem making assumptions about the new farm bill in their Fiscal Year 2009 budget request, so it is interesting that they would ignore it when it pertains to COOL.

I would also like to discuss the National Animal ID program. My position on this issue has always been clear - I support a mandatory animal ID program. I am concerned and frustrated by the seemingly slow and expensive progress on implementing an effective animal ID system in this country.

If Congress provides the funding proposed in the FY 2009 budget ($24 million), taxpayers will have given USDA approximately $152 million over the past five years for the national animal ID program, with virtually nothing to show for it.

That is why I was surprised, Mr. Knight, when you said in February that Congress was the obstacle to implementing the program. Congress is doing its part, and so we need to discuss how USDA and AMS can follow through on their part.

Mr. Link, I have not forgotten about the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). During last year's hearing, we had a discussion about auditing meat packers, and I want to follow up with you on that. I also see that this year's budget request seeks as increase in personnel to strengthen GIPSA's compliance reviews and investigations, so I hope we can discuss that as well.

Thank you all for being here. I look forward to hearing your testimony, as well as your responses to our questions.

Source