Prior to Ireland’s consolidation, more than 50 agencies shared food safety responsibilities. The four countries have recently completed or are still in the process of consolidating their activities. All four countries are incurring short-term costs while expecting long-term benefits. None had developed performance measures and data early in the process to assess the effectiveness of their new systems. In July 1998, Ireland enacted legislation that (1) created the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, (2) made the Authority responsible for overseeing food safety activities, and (3) had the Authority report to the Minister of Health and Children. Countries Expect Long-Term Benefits but Are Incurring Start-Up Costs

Officials in the four countries we visited anticipated start-up costs with the consolidation of food safety activities. Over the long term, however, food safety stakeholders in all four of the countries we visited believe that the benefits of consolidating food safety activities will outweigh the additional costs. None of the Four Countries Has Developed Data for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Consolidation

Food safety officials in all four countries said that their main priority to date has been to consolidate food safety activities. The Canadian inspection agency’s first business plan for 1999 acknowledges the need to establish measures to evaluate the agency’s performance. Lessons the Four Countries Learned From Their Experiences

Officials in the four countries identified several lessons that can be learned from their consolidation experiences. One of the most important is developing a consensus on the need to reform the food safety system. In Denmark and Canada, concerns about program effectiveness and budgetary savings drove the changes. Funding for start-up activities in the three countries that have consolidated their food safety activities was handled differently, but all three found that they needed additional funds. Organizational flexibility. Openness in the new agencies’ decisions and decision-making process is essential in order to maintain consensus and public confidence, according to officials in three of the four countries visited. Evaluation criteria. To identify foreign countries that could be changing their food safety responsibilities, we contacted the embassies of 16 foreign countries that officials in the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Foreign Agriculture Service identified as possibly making changes in their food safety structures. To (1) determine the reasons for and approaches taken to make changes; the costs and savings, if any, associated with the organizational change; and efforts to assess the effectiveness of the new systems and (2) identify the lessons that the United States might learn from these countries’ experiences, we visited four countries that were making such changes—Canada, Denmark, Great Britain, and Ireland. The new agency is headed by a President, who reports to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the experiences of foreign countries that are consolidating their food safety responsibilities, focusing on the: (1) reasons for and approaches taken to consolidation, the costs and savings, if any, associated with consolidation, and efforts to assess the effectiveness of the revised food safety systems; and (2) lessons that the United States might learn from these countries' experiences in consolidating their food safety functions.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the reasons the four countries have consolidated, or are in the process of consolidating, their organizational responsibilities for food safety activities differed, as did the approaches they took; (2) however, all four countries had similar views regarding the costs and benefits of consolidation and the need to evaluate their consolidation efforts; (3) in deciding to consolidate food safety responsibilities, two of the countries--Great Britain and Ireland--were responding to public concerns about the safety of their food supplies and chose to consolidate responsibilities in the agencies that report to their ministers of health; (4) the other two countries--Canada and Denmark--were more concerned about program effectiveness and cost savings and consolidated activities in agencies that report to their ministers of agriculture, who already control most of the food safety resources; (5) all four countries are incurring short-term start-up costs in establishing their new agencies but are expecting long-term benefits in terms of money saved, more food safety for the money spent, and better assurance of food safety; (6) none of the countries had developed performance measures and data early in the consolidation process to assess the effectiveness of their new systems; (7) foreign officials identified several common lessons from their experiences that they believe could be broadly applicable to any U.S. consolidation effort; (8) in all four countries, a consensus had to be developed on the need to consolidate food safety responsibilities; (9) certain management initiatives were needed to establish any new agency; (10) adequate funding for start-up costs was also necessary; (11) furthermore, to help ensure the new agencies' early success, critical operational concerns, such as having the flexibility to shift program resources to the highest food safety priorities, establishing a common organizational culture, and ensuring openness in the decisionmaking process, were important factors that had to be addressed; and (12) evaluation criteria and mechanisms need to be established early in the process in order to assess the new agency's performance.