The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Senator Tom Harking (IA), unanimously voted out of committee federal food safety legislation that would expand the powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate food production, among other provisions.As Andrew Zajac reports for the Los Angeles Times, the measure is similar to the bill that passed in the House this past summer. That bill had to clear a few procedural hurdles as it failed to gain the necessary two-thirds approval from the House to pass under the suspension of the rules. After failing once, the bill came back to the House floor under regular order where it eventually won approval.
Despite the number of recalls and disease outbreaks linked to food and food production over the past year, the authority the House bill gives the FDA is somewhat controversial, and somewhat concerning to many in the food production community, from farmers to processors.
The Senate bill gives the FDA the power to issue mandatory food recalls. Under current law food recalls are issued voluntarily by companies, usually at the behest of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, “the Senate panel added whistle-blower protections and unspecified grants to states to beef up food safety capabilities. It also would require the government to take into account organic agricultural standards and other factors when writing food safety rules.”
Despite passing with bipartisan support out of the HELP Committee, Chairman Harkin acknowledges that the measure will likely not see floor time in the Senate until next year due to the time on the legislative calendar being used by the health care bill.
Zajac notes in his article that the new mandates for the FDA in the bill do not have an off-set (legislative language explaining how the bill will be paid for) as of now. According to the Times article, Harkin wants to get cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office “before deciding how to propose paying for the expanded regimen of product tracking and inspections. But both he and Sen. Michael B. Enzi, the committee’s ranking Republican, spoke against levying user fees on the food industry.”
This is a different approach than was taken by the House. The House bill is estimated to cost $3.7 billion over five years, and is partly paid for through “a $500 annual fee on food processing facilities.” The Consumers Union prefers the House approach to using regular appropriations because Congress could simply decide not to fund the legislation in any given fiscal year if the number of food-borne illnesses drops or if there are no illnesses for a year or two.
For their part, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents food and beverage companies, isn’t completely opposed to the idea of user fees, but would prefer to see the funding used to improve the FDA’s “scientific research capacity because in the long run that is the best path to reducing outbreaks of illness.”
Either way, it does not look like this legislation is going anywhere until the health care debate ends.
To read the LA Times article click here.
Posted: 11/20/09
