HR-2749+Food+Safety+Enhancement+Act

· The Food Safety Enhancement Act would require companies to develop procedures for conducting hazard analysis and instituting preventive controls. The Food and Drug Administration could gain access to those records and order product recalls, if necessary. The secretary of health and human services would establish a system to trace the origins of food from farm to fork. · On July 20, the House passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 ( H.R. 2749 ) by a vote of 283-142. · The bill would give FDA the authority to pull risky products from store shelves. Currently, FDA cannot mandate a recall. Instead, the agency works with industry to orchestrate voluntary recalls. The bill would also require more frequent inspections of food facilities. To pay for the inspections, the bill would allow FDA to charge food facilities an annual $500 registration fee. · In the Pew poll, 66 percent of respondents said they supported the registration fee program. Currently in the Senate · In the Senate, reform efforts have lagged. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a bill in March with bipartisan support, but no hearings have been held. Durbin's bill is similar to the House version, but it does not include the registration fee provision. · The Senate version (S. 510) sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), would instead assess fees on manufacturers who violate the law or importers who voluntarily pay in order to expedite food inspections. This bill is expected to serve as the base bill for Senate debate, rather than the House-passed version.
 * Upcoming legislation:HR-2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act**

· Harkin said he expected the committee's bill to be a modified version of legislation introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. Like the House bill, Durbin's legislation would give the Food and Drug Administration more authority over the 80 percent of the food supply — everything but meat and poultry — that the agency regulates. The administration would be required to inspect processors more often, and processors in turn would face new regulations for guarding against pathogens. · But the Durbin bill omits a key feature of the House-passed bill: a $500 fee on processors to offset the cost of increasing the administration's budget. The House bill also would create a tracing system for foods to aid in investigating outbreaks. There also are tougher standards for foreign processors — a provision that doesn't sit well with European countries — in the House legislation. · Other areas of possible contention include provisions in the House bill that would affect small farms and processors, such as the $500 fee and growing standards for fruits and vegetables. Their advocates expect to have an ally in Harkin, former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Some Republican argue that the United States' food safety problems will persist unless Congress addresses their root causes, which are unique to the United States and are three-fold: 1. Current food policies promote and facilitate the consolidation and contraction of independent farmers and ranchers and this is inherently dangerous to both food safety and food security. 2. Sound U.S food safety standards were weakened when Congress acquiesced to international standards that prohibit it from targeting food safety problems originating in foreign countries with stricter standards – //unless// Congress first applies the stricter standards to the U.S., regardless of whether the stricter standards are applicable to the U.S. food production system. 3. Congress' adoption of the internationally-touted HACCP food safety system hampers Congress' ability to ensure that even existing food safety requirements are properly followed. Thornsberry said that R-CALF USA is urging the U.S. Senate to take the following steps to improve food safety: 1. Correct and reverse the three above-listed fundamental deficiencies in our food system that makes genuine food safety in the U.S. unattainable. 2. Reestablish food safety standards previously weakened when Congress acquiesced to international standards, and then direct agencies responsible for food safety to begin hands-on inspection and enforcement of U.S. food safety standards for all imported food and for food processing facilities where food contamination is known to frequently occur. 3. Do not accord international standards more weight than is accorded any other standards, such as those recommended in studies by U.S. land grant universities. 4. Do not presume that international standards – designed specifically to facilitate trade – are appropriate standards to be imposed on U.S. farmers and ranchers or that corporate food processors can adequately police themselves under HACCP. International standards must //not// be referenced or cited in U.S. food safety statutes, and HACCP must be reformed. 5. Take no action that would impose any additional regulatory burdens on any U.S. farmer or rancher, including any requirement to register their farms and ranches with the federal government or participate in a federally mandated food traceability program. 6. If Congress suspects that a particular segment of U.S. production agriculture is contributing to food safety problems, a formal risk and hazard analysis must be conducted to determine the specific practice(s) that caused or contributed to the food safety problem and the specific type of farming operation involved in that practice (i.e., an independent farming operation or an industrialized food production unit) to determine the specific corrective actions needed. Background on the HACCP
 * Summation of Senate Version of House Bill 2749**
 * Some Arguments Against the Food Safety Enhancment Act **
 * Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)** is a systematic preventive approach to [|food safety] and pharmaceutical safety that addresses physical, [|chemical], and [|biological] hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection. HACCP is used in the food industry to identify potential food safety hazards, so that key actions, known as [|Critical Control Points] (CCPs) can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the hazards being realized. The system is used at all stages of [|food production] and preparation processes including [|packaging], distribution, etc. The [|Food and Drug Administration] (FDA) and the [|United States Department of Agriculture] (USDA) say that their mandatory HACCP programs for juice and meat are an effective approach to food safety and protecting public health. Meat HACCP systems are regulated by the USDA, while seafood and juice are regulated by the FDA. The use of HACCP is currently voluntary in other food industries.