FSIS has issued regulations and directives to enforce the act. FSIS Has Taken Actions Intended to Improve Its Records on Humane Slaughter Violations, but Public Reporting Can Enhance Transparency

In 2004, we identified weaknesses in FSIS’s regulations and guidance for  recording compliance with HMSA in key areas: (1) the frequency and  scope of humane handling and slaughter violations, and (2) actions to  enforce compliance with humane handling and slaughter provisions. However, although the Congress has urged USDA to report  annually on violations and trends in compliance, USDA has not issued  such a report since March 2003. In 2004, we reported that incomplete and inconsistent FSIS inspection  records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of humane  handling and slaughter violations. Third, the noncompliance records did not consistently  document the scope and severity of violations. We also reported FSIS took inconsistent enforcement actions to address  noncompliance with HMSA. To provide more useful information and to help strengthen oversight of  HMSA, we recommended in 2004 that the Secretary of Agriculture direct  FSIS to (1) include in noncompliance records specific information on the  type and cause of violations, (2) establish additional criteria for when  districts are to take enforcement actions in cases of repetitive violations,  and (3) require that district offices and inspectors clearly document the  basis for enforcement actions that they take in response to  repetitive violations, among others. In its most recent report, in March 2003,  USDA indicated to the Congress that during fiscal year 2002, “very few  infractions were for actual inhumane treatment of the animals.” However,  we identified shortcomings in the data used to make this finding. In  contrast, our analysis of all of the noncompliance records FSIS provided  for fiscal year 2002 showed that one-fourth of the 366 noncompliance  incidents documented by inspectors were for incidents of ineffective  stunning which fails to meet humane standards in USDA regulations. FSIS’s Budget Has Increased as Staffing Has Declined

Unlike the budgets of other federal agencies responsible for food safety,  the budget for FSIS has seen a marked increase since 1988. Agency officials noted the  overall decline is due, in part, to consolidation in the meat industry,  resulting in fewer facilities, and the introduction of the Hazard Analysis  and Critical Control Point system, which is a risk-based effort to reduce  food contamination. Furthermore, in 2004 we reported FSIS did not have data on the number of  inspectors devoted to compliance with HMSA or on the amount of time  that inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter requirements. Again, these actions were responsive to our recommendations, but  without further evaluation, we do not know the effectiveness of these  actions. Although not directly pertaining to FSIS’s enforcement of HMSA, the  quantity of meat and poultry inspected by the agency, as well as the  quantity of meat and poultry recalled, identifies some of the current  challenges the agency faces. Meat and poultry consumption in the United  States has increased sharply. Federal Oversight of Food Safety Is a High- Risk Area that Needs Governmentwide Reexamination

While today’s hearing focuses specifically on FSIS’s responsibilities for the  oversight of food safety, it is important to note that FSIS is 1 of 15 federal  agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. Primary responsibility for food safety lies with  USDA—which has oversight responsibility for meat, poultry, and  processed egg products—and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)— which is responsible for the safety of virtually all other foods. While we have reported on problems with the federal food safety system— including inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient  use of resources—most noteworthy for today’s hearing is that federal  expenditures for the oversight of food safety have not kept pace with the  volume of foods regulated by the agencies or consumed by the public. We have also recommended that the executive branch  reconvene the President’s Council on Food Safety to facilitate interagency  coordination on food safety regulation and programs. Going forward, to build a sustained focus on the  safety and integrity of the nation’s food supply, the Congress and the  executive branch can develop expectations for food safety and follow up  with congressional oversight and strategic planning by agencies, including  USDA.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2007, more than 150 million cattle, sheep, and other animals destined for human consumption were slaughtered in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for enforcing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which mandates that animals are handled and slaughtered humanely. GAO reported on USDA's efforts to enforce HMSA in 2004 (Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247). More broadly, GAO has also issued many reports that address federal oversight of the U.S. food safety system. This testimony focuses on (1) GAO's 2004 report on the frequency and scope of reported HMSA violations and enforcement actions by USDA, (2) information on trends in staffing and funding for USDA food inspections, and (3) information on overall federal oversight of food safety. To provide this new information, GAO analyzed personnel and funding data from USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, and interviewed USDA food safety inspection officials.

What GAO Found

In January 2004, GAO reported that incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of HMSA violations, inspectors did not always document violations of the act, and they did not consistently document the scope and severity of each incident. GAO also reported that enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act were inconsistent, and that USDA was not using consistent criteria to determine when to suspend plant operations in cases of serious or repeated violations. The Congress has urged USDA to report annually on trends in compliance with humane slaughter methods. Such public reporting can enhance transparency, but USDA's most recent report was in March 2003 and relied on incomplete data. For example, that report said very few infractions were for inhumane treatment, but GAO found that at least one-fourth of the infractions were for ineffective stunning which fails to meet humane standards. USDA has taken actions to address the recommendations GAO made in 2004 about oversight of HMSA. However, GAO has not evaluated the effectiveness of these actions. USDA faces resource challenges that may make it difficult for it to enforce HMSA and ensure the safety of the food supply. Although USDA's budget for food safety-related activities has increased since 1988, staffing for these activities has declined from its highest level in 1995. Agency officials noted the overall decline is due, in part, to consolidation in the meat industry, resulting in fewer facilities. In 2004, GAO found that USDA lacked detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter activities, making it difficult to determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. USDA has taken actions to address most of GAO's recommendations for assessing its resource needs for HMSA, but GAO has not evaluated these actions. Although not directly related to HMSA activities, the quantity of meat and poultry inspected and passed by USDA has grown, and the quantity of meat and poultry recalled has increased. USDA has oversight responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and processed eggs. For example, federal regulations prohibit companies from processing and selling meat from disabled cows--which have a higher probability of being infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy--without explicit USDA inspector approval. However, USDA is only 1 of 15 agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. This fragmentation is the key reason GAO added the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk Series in 2007 and called for a governmentwide reexamination of the food safety system. GAO has reported on problems with this system--including inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. Going forward, as GAO has recommended, a governmentwide, results-oriented performance plan and a reconvened President's Council on Food Safety could build a sustained focus on the safety of the nation's food supply.