As a  result, federal agencies spend resources on similar food safety activities. Agencies Maintain Similar Inspection Training Programs

USDA and FDA provide similar training to their inspectors. The agencies’ ability to take full advantage of these agreements  is hampered by the absence of adequate mechanisms for tracking them  and, in some cases, by ineffective implementation of the provisions of these  agreements. The other agencies did not have such  databases. USDA and FDA Agreement to Exchange Information About Establishments That Are Subject to the Jurisdiction of Both Agencies and to Permit More Efficient Use of Resources

In 1999, USDA and FDA signed an interagency agreement to facilitate the  exchange of information between the agencies about food-processing  facilities that they both inspect. Industry and Other Stakeholders Disagree on the Significance of Overlap in the Federal Food Safety System and on How to Improve It

Industry associations, food-processing companies, consumer groups, and  academic experts we contacted disagree on the significance of overlapping  activities in the federal food safety system. However, most of these  stakeholders agree that the laws and regulations governing the system  should be modernized so that science and technological advancements can  be used to more effectively and efficiently control current and emerging  food safety hazards. These overlaps, they noted,  occur primarily in dual jurisdiction establishments—those regulated by  both USDA and FDA—or facilities inspected by both FDA and NMFS. Other interagency agreements designed to reduce overlap  might also prove fruitful. To better use FDA’s limited inspection resources and leverage USDA’s  resources, we recommend that, if appropriate and cost effective, the  Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, as authorized under  the Pubic Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response  Act of 2002, enter into an agreement to commission USDA inspectors to  carry out FDA’s inspection responsibilities for food establishments that are  under the jurisdiction of both agencies. In addition, this  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. Scope and Methodology

To identify overlaps that may exist in the federal food safety system, we  collected fiscal year 2003 budget data for food safety-related activities from  the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and  the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We  defined the categories of food safety activities into the following program  functions:   Monitoring/Surveillance: activities related to the monitoring of  foodborne illness or disease, as well as monitoring the agents of illness  in the food supply, including the collection of baseline data for  contaminants;   Inspection/Enforcement: activities related to ensuring compliance with  agency food safety regulations, including premarket application or  petition approval;   Education/Outreach: activities related to communicating food safety- related information or guidance to the public, industry, or agencies’  other clients;   Research: activities related to the study of food safety-related topics,  which support agency policy decisions;   Risk assessment: activities related to evaluation of the likelihood and  severity of an adverse event (e.g., illness or death) on the public health  as a result of the likelihood of exposure to a particular hazard;  Food security: activities related to preparing for and responding to  deliberate attacks on the food supply;   Administration: supporting activities that enable the agencies to  perform their food safety responsibilities. GAO Comments

1. GAO Comments

1. 2. 3.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO has documented many problems resulting from the fragmented nature of the federal food safety system and recommended fundamental restructuring to ensure the effective use of scarce government resources. In this report, GAO (1) identified overlaps in food safety activities at USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS; (2) analyzed the extent to which the agencies use interagency agreements to leverage resources; and (3) obtained the views of stakeholders.

What GAO Found

Several statutes give responsibility for different segments of the food supply to different agencies to ensure that the food supply is safe. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have the primary responsibility for regulating food safety, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also involved. In carrying out their responsibilities, with respect to both domestic and imported food, these agencies spend resources on a number of overlapping activities, such as inspection/enforcement, training, research, or rulemaking. For example, both USDA and FDA conduct similar inspections at 1,451 dual jurisdiction establishments--facilities that produce foods regulated by both agencies. Under authority granted by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, FDA could authorize USDA inspectors to inspect these facilities, but it has not done so. Furthermore, USDA and FDA maintain separate training programs on similar topics for their inspectors that could be shared. Ultimately, inspection and training resources could be used more efficiently. GAO identified 71 interagency agreements that the agencies entered into to better protect public health and to coordinate their food safety activities. However, the agencies have weak mechanisms for tracking these agreements that, in some cases, lead to ineffective implementation. Specifically, USDA and FDA are not fully implementing an agreement to facilitate the exchange of information about dual jurisdiction establishments, which both agencies inspect. In addition, FDA and NMFS are not implementing an agreement designed to enable each agency to discharge its seafood responsibilities effectively. GAO spoke with selected industry associations, food companies, consumer groups, and academic experts, and they disagree on the extent of overlap and on how best to improve the food safety system. Most of these stakeholders agreed that laws and regulations should be modernized to more effectively and efficiently control food safety hazards, but they differed about whether to consolidate food safety functions into a single agency.