I’m speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival: Health. I’ll be interviewed by Helena Bottemiller Evich of FoodFix from 9:00 to 9:50 a.m.. Topic: “Making sense of nutrition science.”
I’m catching up with events that occurred while I was out of the country. One was the release by FDA of two of its long-awaited proposals for food safety rules.
These go into the Federal Register on January 16. But they were announced on January 4, perhaps to commemorate the two-year anniversary of President Obama’s signing the Food Safety Modernization Act authorizing these rules.
The two massive sets of proposed rules, 680 and 547 pages, respectively, are:
Still to come: proposed rules for
Notice that all of these are proposals. Terrific as it is to have them released, no breath-holding is in order.
Once the proposals appear in the Federal Register, interested parties will have 120 days to comment. It will probably take a year for the FDA to write final rules. For the produce standards at least, larger farms get 2 years before implementation kicks in. Smaller farms get 3 or 4 more years to figure out how to comply.
Some farms, such as those bringing in less than $500,000 per year, are exempt. Chalk that up to successful lobbying by small farmers.
The FDA estimates that the new rules will cost large farms about $30,000 a year, and small farms $13,000. It says that following the rules will prevent 1.75 million cases of foodborne illness a year and save more than $1 billion in costs.
The rules for produce focus on prevention of contamination through:
All food producers will need to develop, submit, and follow a written food safety plan that includes:
That’s the basic outline. The devil is in the details and in this case there are plenty of them (I have much sympathy for whoever has to write these things). The proposals devote hundreds of pages to definitions. Here, for example, is FDA’s summary of its definition of farm and farm activities. Hint: RAC = Raw Agricultural Commodity.
I include this example to illustrate what food producers are up against. It explains why practically every group commenting on the proposals said the same things: “we are glad they are out but must reserve comment until we—and our lawyers—have a chance to go over the rules in detail.”
My guess is that we will be hearing plenty more about these reactions when they do.
In the meantime, the elephant in the room issue is funding. The FDA’s budget is already overstressed. How can it possibly add monitoring and enforcement responsibilities without additional staff and funding? How can it get new resources from this Congress?
Recall: the FDA gets its funding from congressional agriculture appropriations committees, not health committees.
The FDA addresses the funding issue in a website Q and A:
G.5. Does FDA have sufficient funding to implement the new rule? The funding we have available through the annual budget cycle and fees impacts the number of FTEs we have and will be a factor in the way that FDA handles its significant and far-ranging activities, including the way that this legislation is implemented… Without additional funding, FDA will be challenged in implementing the legislation fully without compromising other key functions. We look forward to working with Congress and our partners to ensure that FDA is funded sufficiently to achieve our food safety and food defense goals.
Indeed.
To submit a comment: