Archives
June 2010

August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

October 2006
September 2006
May 2006
March 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004

House vote expected this week on food-safety bill

The Miami Herald/McClatchy Newspapers
July 27, 2009
By Michael Doyle

Email this page

The nation's food suppliers will face new fees, inspections and penalties under a multibillion-dollar food-safety bill set for a vote as early as Wednesday by the House of Representatives.

From importers and growers to processors and distributors, the painstakingly negotiated 133-page bill touches every facet of the U.S. food supply chain. While taxpayers and businesses will pay more, consumers are supposed to be safer.

"There is no partisan gap when it comes to keeping the food supply safe," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Enacting the tougher food-safety measures, such as increased inspections, will cost the federal government $3.5 billion during the next five years. New industry inspection and registration fees will pay for nearly half the tab.

The bill's full impact, however, can't yet be known. In part, that's because lawmakers were still negotiating provisions as late as Monday. Major farm organizations remained skeptical or even opposed outright pending further changes in the bill.

"Let's proceed cautiously," Jack King, the manager of national affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said Monday. "All of a sudden, we have a new layer of government authority in how crops are produced. We think that's a real leap."

For instance, the bill approved by Waxman's committee requires "risk-based standards for the safe growing, harvesting, processing, packing, sorting, transporting and holding" of raw fruits and vegetables. The Department of Health and Human Services has three years to write the precise standards.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act marks the latest congressional bid to boost consumer protections following high-profile incidents such as the 2006 distribution of E. coli-contaminated spinach. More recently, salmonella has been traced to pistachios.

Often, though, people fall ill without making headlines. An estimated 325,000 U.S. residents are hospitalized and some 5,000 die each year because of food-borne disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.

The legislation is credited to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. Dingell has adopted some provisions offered by his colleagues as well as lobbying groups such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

"(This will) go a long way to comforting our consumers and boosting their confidence in the safety of our nation's food supply, particularly the stuff coming in from abroad," said Dingell, who last year was unseated by Waxman as the panel's chairman.

House leaders set the technically complex food-safety bill for approval by voice vote, a procedure usually reserved for noncontroversial measures. The procedure doesn't allow for any floor amendments and requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

The Senate still must approve its own legislation, and House and Senate negotiators will have to resolve their differences.

House provisions include:

-Food producing and processing facilities already must register with the FDA. The bill stiffens this requirement to mandate annual registration renewal, as well as payment of a new $500 registration fee.

-Food facilities must prepare a "hazard analysis" and develop food safety plans. An estimated 360,000 facilities nationwide face FDA inspections under the bill.

-The FDA could impose a quarantine of a geographic area in order to stop shipment of potentially contaminated food. This causes concern among agricultural groups and their Capitol Hill allies, who are hoping to revise the provision.

"Quarantine language that would shut down an entire region should be unnecessary," Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., said during House Energy and Commerce consideration, warning of risks to "innocent producers, packers and distributors in the region (faced) with the stigma of a quarantine."

© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.