From Agribusiness Examiner #138 1/3/02

by Al Krebs

ERIC PIANIN, WASHINGTON POST: . . . Since the September 11 attacks, counterterrorism experts and lawmakers have warned that the nation's agricultural and food processing industry --- regulated by more than a dozen federal agencies --- is vulnerable to biological attacks that could kill Americans and send the industry into an economic tailspin. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said recently he is especially concerned that foreign terrorists could contaminate food imports because of lax inspection and security at 300 ports of entry.

Yet the politically potent food industry, led by the National Food Processors Association, the National Grocers Association and the American Frozen Food Institute, has vigorously --- and effectively --- argued that government and industry food safety and quality control systems are more than adequate to meet any threat. Rather than expanding government regulations, industry officials say, Congress should simply provide more inspectors and more funding.

"I think we've already got the system in place to deal with terrorism," Kelly Johnston, executive vice president and chief lobbyist for the food processors, said . . . "We just need more information from the government to make sure we can address any potential threat."

What security experts fear is not, generally speaking, mass poisoning of wheat fields or food processing plants; because the food supply is so diffuse and diverse, that would be logistically difficult to do on any meaningful scale. What they do fear is the nationwide panic that terrorists could induce by contaminating even a few shipments of imported food or by introducing a virus deadly to U.S. livestock or crops.

Panic could have a devastating economic impact, much as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain virtually destroyed that country's beef industry. And the worst hit, ironically, would be the producers who have lobbied successfully against new regulations. "While you would certainly inflict some casualties, what you're doing with agriculture bioterrorism really is attacking our economy," said Jerry Jaax, a bioterrorism expert at Kansas State University. "It's an assault on our way of life."

Food is big business in America -- the U.S. meat industry alone reported $100 billion in sales last year, and food processors generated $490 billion in revenue --- and it has commensurate political clout. Last year, agribusiness and food processors contributed $13.9 million to Republican and Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The industry opposes more government regulation because it adds to its operating costs, forces companies to open their books to investigators and could result in delays in moving perishable goods to market.

Champions of increased policing powers, on the other side, include government food safety experts who are troubled by gaps in the regulatory safety net, lawmakers who take particular interest in consumer issues, and consumer groups. Bioterrorism experts such as Jaax -- a former Army veterinarian who helped respond to the 1989 ebola outbreak in Reston that was detailed in the best-selling book "The Hot Zone" -- believe that agriculture is a definite target of opportunity for terrorists. Even they, however, are skeptical that any of the food safety proposals under consideration in Congress would make much difference.

For the second year, industry leaders last month blocked a proposal by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Dem.-Illinois) to consolidate the federal food inspection agencies under one roof to coordinate their activities. A few weeks earlier, they helped defeat an amendment by Sen. Tom Harkin (Dem.-Iowa) that would have ensured the continuation of new limits on salmonella in meat and poultry that are being challenged in court.

Industry lobbyists persuaded lawmakers to water down or drop proposals from bioterrorism bills that would have substantially enhanced the Food and Drug Administration's authority over domestic and foreign food processors and its ability to ferret out adulterated goods. Mounting a vigorous letter-writing and grass-roots lobbying effort, 18 trade groups representing every facet of the food processing and marketing industry worked to limit new FDA food inspection authority in bioterrorism bills being crafted by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (Dem.-Massachusetts) and Bill Frist (Rep.-Tennessee) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (Rep.-Louisiana). . . .

For years before Americans seriously considered a threat of bioterrorism, there was a simmering controversy over the government's fragmented food safety regulatory policies and gaps in protection. Food-borne illnesses from E. coli, botulism and other bacteria kill an estimated 5,000 people a year and hospitalize an additional 325,000. The General Accounting Office describes the system as a "patchwork structure" that is seriously hampering government efforts to address the new terrorist threats.

Fifteen agencies -- including the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- oversee the production, import and distribution of food, and each agency has its own rules and resources.

The Agriculture Department handles the safety of domestic and imported meat, poultry and some fruit; the FDA is responsible for ensuring that all other domestic and imported foods, including fish, vegetables and processed goods, are safe, wholesome and properly labeled.

Yet the FDA has 750 inspectors for 87,000 food processing plants, while the USDA has 10 times as many inspectors to cover 6,000 plants. While the FDA is responsible for inspecting all non-meat and poultry food shipments to the United States, the 150 inspectors assigned to that task are able to inspect less than one percent of the 3.7 million shipments of imported food that arrive each year.

Moreover, the FDA has fewer powers than the Agriculture Department to regulate the activities of domestic and foreign producers and to detain tainted food while seeking a court order to seize it. While the Agriculture Department can insist that countries exporting meat and poultry to the United States have food safety systems comparable to the one here, the FDA cannot.

"The system of food safety in the United States is beyond explanation," said Durbin, the chairman of a Senate Governmental Affairs oversight subcommittee and long-time critic of the patchwork regulatory system. Lawmakers are almost certain to approve the administration's request for $61 million to hire 410 more FDA food inspectors and technicians and to tighten security at agriculture research centers. . . . .