Share This Page

Food and Drug Administration won't reduce food inspections despite budget cuts

| Sunday, May 5, 2013, 9:03 p.m.

The Food and Drug Administration will not reduce food inspections because of budget cuts, despite warning that it could be forced to eliminate thousands of inspections by Sept. 30.

“Our goal is to absorb the cuts without a risk to public health. We are working to manage the budget reductions through other mechanisms,” FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess said.

Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told USA Today last month that the agency feared it could be forced to cut as many as 2,100 inspections — 18 percent of the annual total — because of the mandated budget reductions known as the sequestration. The agency has been working to decrease the needed cuts for months, she said. FDA oversees food safety for almost everything but meat and poultry.

“The commissioner was clearly working off a worst-case scenario,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. “It's certainly a relief to hear that that scenario will likely not take place.”

The numbers shifted so drastically because FDA reconfigured its budget to avoid cutting inspections, focusing instead on decreasing travel and training, said Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods. Just figuring out where the agency stood took time, he said. “These sound like simple questions, but in the budget world of the federal government they're not.”

The FDA was helped by an infusion of $40 million to fund the Food Safety Modernization Act, the 2011 act hailed as the most comprehensive food-safety law in generations. Food safety advocates fear that sequestration will delay implementation of the law.

“Congress and the administration recognized the importance of food safety and realized they needed to make an exception” for it, said Chris Waldrop, director of the food policy institute at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington.

Exactly how the budget will play out is still being worked out. Overall, the FDA came out “better off in 2013 than we were in 2012” in terms of the Food Safety Modernization Act but “eroded a little bit” when it comes to food safety, Taylor said. “It's not like there's no effect, but it's not like we're going to turn off one big chunk of program and stop doing things.”

“We're comforted” that food safety won't be hit as hard as it originally seemed it would, said Louis Finkel of the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington, D.C. “Ensuring the safety of the food supply for the public is a crucial government function. We were very grateful that Congress saw fit to put additional resources” into it.

The FDA will need more money in the future to hire the necessary inspectors and technicians to meet the requirements of the new law, said Erik Olson, director of food programs at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, D.C. “But in a sequester year, we feel good about 2013” in terms of funding, he said.

The Agriculture Department's Food Safety Inspection Service, which oversees all meat and poultry slaughterhouses and packing plants, dodged the sequester bullet entirely.

The agency was supposed to get hit with $52.8 million in cuts. Elisabeth Hagen, undersecretary for food safety, said on March 13 that the cuts would require shutting down meatpacking and slaughter plants one day a week until the end of September, reducing meat production by 20(PERCENT).

Faced with that prospect, Congress voted on March 22 to give the USDA $55 million to keep inspectors on the job.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.