While Others Try to Go Forward, Bradley Retreats with Inspection Reform Measure
by Gary Jay Kushner
Just when it looks like consensus is growing for transforming meat inspection into a science-based system, someone proposes to step backward.
Last year, it was the Clinton administration's Pathogen Reduction Act.
This year, it is the Family Food Protection Act, hereafter known as the Bradley bill in honor of its Senate sponsor, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Calif.) and Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)
The Bradley bill not only incorporates many provisions in the Pathogen Reduction Act, but goes beyond it.
This makes a bad bill worse.
Like the Pathogen Reduction Act, the Bradley bill would require that USDA establish regulations to limit the presence of human pathogens in meat and poultry products. Products not in compliance would be deemed adulterated and subject to condemnation.
The Bradley bill would also obligate USDA to set interim limits for human pathogens and other "potentially harmful substances" and require products to be tested for the presence of such pathogens. Permanent regulatory limits for such substances would ultimately be established by FDA.
And also like the Pathogen Reduction Act, the Bradley bill would allow USDA to withdraw inspection services if, after a hearing, it is determined that the plant has "repeatedly failed to comply" with regulations.
Under current law, USDA may withdraw inspection only if the targeted plant is shown to be unfit-a showing that requires that it, or its owner, has been convicted of a crime. Consistent with the Pathogen Reduction Act, the Bradley bill would give USDA authority to impose penalties of up to $100,000 a day for violating regulations.
The Bradley bill would also require anyone who prepares a product for distribution and has a "reasonable basis for believing" that the product is "unsafe for human consumption," adulterated or misbranded to immediately notify USDA.
This provision would extend to situations in which a company discovered it improperly labeled a product, even if the error resulted in no adverse health consequences or consumer fraud.
Following notification, USDA would be required to order that distribution and sale of the targeted product be stopped and to recall it if "the secretary determines that there is a reasonable probability that the product is unsafe for human consumption, adulterated or misbranded."
The tip of the iceberg
But the Bradley bill goes beyond the Pathogen Reduction Act in three significant areas.
-- The bill would redefine "adulterated." A product would be deemed adulterated if there is a "reasonable probability" that the quantity of a substance that is not an added substance "will cause adverse health consequences."
Currently, a product is not considered adulterated unless the quantity of a substance that is not an added substance "ordinarily renders" the product "injurious to health."
The revised standard likely would be easier for USDA to establish.
-- The bill would direct USDA to issue regulations requiring plants to adopt processing controls that are adequate to protect the public health and limit the presence and growth of pathogens and other potentially harmful substances in products.
These regulations would set standards for sanitation; establish limits for biological, chemical and physical hazards; require pressing controls to ensure standards are met; require record-keeping to maintain compliance; require sampling to ensure that controls are effective; and provide for department access to plant records.
-- The bill would require USDA to establish minimum standards for handling, storing and processing products at retail and foodservice establishments, and issue guidelines incorporating said standards.
Within three years of enactment, USDA would have to issue a report determining whether retail establishments were in "substantial compliance" with the guidelines.
And if retailers did not comply on their own, USDA would be obligated to mandate their compliance.
Although modifications to current regulations seem inevitable-and many modifications are receiving support from diverse interests-the Bradley bill would dramatically alter the scope and reach of federal inspection regulations.
Many on Capitol Hill, and in USDA, claim they favor a partnership between industry and USDA in inspection reform.
That is not what the Bradley bill is all about.