Release No. 0041.98
                                                               
Remarks
                                                               
                               OF
                     SECRETARY DAN GLICKMAN
         UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH SCHOOL
            SEATTLE, WASHINGTON -- JANUARY 28, 1998
                                                               
     Thank you, Provost Huntsman. I want to thank State Secretary of Health
Bruce Miyahara for joining us. And, I should recognize the woman who brought
me to Seattle, Suzanne Kiner. I met Suzanne in Chicago at the memorial
service marking the 5th anniversary of the Pacific Northwest outbreak. This
morning, I met with Suzanne, her daughter Brianne, Nancy Donley, the
president of a wonderful organization -- Safe Tables Our Priority -- and
other families who were victims of that terrible, I hope, unrepeatable
tragedy. This afternoon, I'll go to the state public health lab and meet
some of the heroes -- the epidemiologists who helped bring the outbreak
under control. 

     Washington needs no lecture on the importance of safe food. Long
before the tragedy of 1993, this state and this university have been on the
cutting-edge in fighting food-borne illness. Washington was the first state
-- back in 1987 -- to make E. coli 0157:H7 a reportable disease. Today, some
40 states have followed suit. I'm proud to have in the audience today Dr.
Phillip Tarr, a world expert on Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, along with Dr.
John Kobayashi, one of our nation's finest epidemiologists. These are true
pioneers in the safety of America's food.

     I also want to introduce someone on my team. Just a few years ago, the
words  public health' were rarely uttered at the Department of Agriculture.
Today, we have an Office of Public Health and Science which is headed by Dr.
Kay Wachsmuth who used to be a researcher here at the University of
Washington. We're very lucky to have her. She's one of the world's leading
experts in microbiology and infectious diseases. 

     You know, I talk a lot to folks in the meat and poultry industry and
to consumers, but I rarely talk to scientists. That's because when I talk to
all of you about the CDC, or epidemiology or the finer points of microbial
testing and DNA fingerprinting, and I get something wrong, you can call me
on it. So I stand here not without trepidation. On the other hand, I never
confuse myself with a scientist. My domain is public policy, and I'm here
because our arenas -- science and government -- are making a dramatic
difference -- and can do more to improve the public health. 

     You know, we hear people grouse all the time about how much better
things would be if government just got out of the way. But ask those same
people: who should make sure the planes they fly run safely? Who should
ensure the solvency of the banks that hold their life savings? Who should be
in charge of the nation's defense? The unanimous answer is government. Food
safety falls into this same category, and people don't just want government
involved in food safety. They want government to do more. 

     Why? Because people look to government to protect them in ways that
they cannot fully protect themselves. People want government to be actively
involved in protecting the public health and safety. They know, in the same
way that the fox can't guard the chicken coop, that it is sound public
policy for the government to be the chief overseer of public health and
safety functions. 
                                
     There is no responsibility that I take more seriously as Agriculture Secretary than food safety. It effects the
quality of every American life, every day, which is why USDA's work is very much a part of this Administration's
effort to improve public health by supporting cutting-edge science.

     In his State of the Union, the President talked in detail about the stunning advances underway in research and
technology, particularly in the field of biomedicine. In the 1980s, it took nine years for scientists to identify the gene
that causes cystic fibrosis. Last year, scientists located the gene that causes Parkinson's Disease in nine days. 

     Scientists stand on the cusp of dramatic breakthroughs that could revolutionize the way medical experts
understand, treat and prevent some of our most devastating diseases. We know our scientists are capable of achieving
these advances. The real question is: will they have the resources? Last night, President Clinton answered with a
resounding  yes,' proposing an historic  increase -- a boost of $1.15 billion to be exact -- in federal funding for
biomedical research. And, that's just in his 1999 budget. He intends to increase by 50% funding for the National
Institutes of Health over the next five years -- bringing the total federal investment in biomedical research to more than
$20 billion.

     Clearly, advances in food safety are closely linked to the forward march of science. I don't want
another family to go through what the families I met with this morning have
been through. Ask them. Ask Doctor Tarr. It's not something you would wish
on your worst enemy. We don't have a silver bullet, at least not yet. But we
do have the power to take dramatic steps toward safer food. 

     From new science-based meat and poultry inspections to historic
investments in everything from cutting-edge research and surveillance to
consumer education, I am proud of what this Administration has done for food
safety in America. Alongside a balanced budget and a formidable U.S.
economy, I believe that a science-based revolution in the safety of our food
will be one of our lasting legacies.

     The same month this Administration took office -- along with Senator
Patty Murray, who has been a great champion of our food safety efforts --
tragedy struck here, galvanizing the nation behind a morally unstoppable
mandate for dramatic change. At the time, that meant modernizing our systems
-- taking what science had learned and raising the bar on food safety. 

     The best example is USDA's new meat and poultry inspection system
which went on-line at the bigger plants this Monday. For close to a century,
our inspectors had to rely solely on their human senses -- sight, touch and
smell -- to spot contamination. We now know that the biggest dangers in our
food are invisible pathogens that cannot be detected without the help of
science. The old ways -- which date back to the turn of the century when
Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle and sparked the passage of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, one of America's first consumer protection laws -- were no
longer adequate. 

     Our new inspection system recognizes what science has discovered. For
the first time, there will be regular tests for generic E. coli and
salmonella. For the first time, plants and processors will be required to
not just catch contamination, but close the safety gaps that invite it. For
the first time, the focus is on prevention, and America's public policy
makes it crystal clear that industry is responsible for producing safe food.

     We call the new system Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points --
HACCP, for short. It requires plants to come up with a tailored prevention
plan that targets key points in their operation where contamination might
occur and outlines specific steps to ensure safety. USDA's job is to make
sure the plans work through testing, inspections, and reviews of company
records. 

     This is a major cultural change. I've talked to industry and consumer
groups over the past few weeks to make it clear that USDA will be fair but
firm in its enforcement. HACCP's goal is to use modern science to
significantly improve food safety, and we will not back away from that goal.
In 1996, we shut down six plants for inadequate sanitation. In 1997, as
companies phased in their HACCP sanitation plans that number rose to 20. So
companies need to take their new responsibilities very seriously, every day. 

     When there are problems, our goal is to step in early enough that
failures can be addressed without any major disruptions and certainly before
illnesses occur. Many companies are good about fixing problems quickly.
Unfortunately, others let the complaints pile up, engaging in a game of
regulatory chicken, knowing that USDA's only formal recourse is to shut them
down. Some offenses are so egregious that severe action is warranted. But
many times it's not, and a lesser punishment, such as a fine, would do.
Unfortunately, while the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FAA can
issue fines. USDA cannot. It is an unjustifiable anomaly. After all, USDA
can fine you for abusing a circus elephant, for failing to report to the
watermelon committee, or selling a cat without a license. Yet when it comes
to unsafe food -- the only one of these actions that puts people's lives at
stake -- our hands are tied. It's wrong. We should not treat unsafe food
differently than any other threat to the public health.

     I want to thank Senator Murray for her effort on behalf of the Food
Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act which would give USDA the authority to
fine companies that violate food safety standards. This would give them a
strong incentive to fix problems quickly so things don't escalate to the
point where a plant's very existence is on the line. No one wants that. But
as USDA has demonstrated, to protect the public health, we will take
whatever action is necessary.

     I'll never forget during the Hudson recall when I stopped in at a
fast-food restaurant for lunch. I asked the guy at the register,  how do you
know when your burgers are cooked.' He said,  we use a meat thermometer.'
Then, I asked,  how do you use it?' He looked at me and said,  we stick it
in our customers ears.' In a roundabout way, that was an encouraging answer.
Evidently, he'd been asked that question one too many times .. consumers
wanted to know.
     
     Do you know what NPR's top 3 stories of 1997 were? One: Princess
Diana. Two: Iraq's chemical weapons. Three: the Hudson Beef recall.
Consumers are interested and increasingly educated. Meat thermometer sales
this past Thanksgiving were at record highs. These trends reflect a basic
truth in today's world: the health interests of consumers and the economic
interests of the food industry are coming together. Why? Because safe food
sells.

     Look at the global scares of 1997: During the avian flu epidemic in
Hong Kong -- where they killed all the chickens -- Hong Kong consumers cut
their poultry purchases in half. With the mad cow problem in Europe, beef
sales there dropped 40%. Here at home, what was the market impact of the
Hudson beef recall? Nearly zero. People trusted that government and the
public health community were putting their safety first. That trust is rare
around the world. All of us must constantly challenge ourselves to earn it.

     I mentioned that with the early food safety advances of this
Administration, the focus was more on adjusting our standards to reflect
modern science. Our challenge now is to push the frontiers of our knowledge,
seeking new ways to improve food safety and better understand our enemy.

     Why are we seeing new, more virulent, resistant strains of E. coli and
other pathogens? As our surveillance has increased, we've found that
campylobacter is the number one cause of food-borne illness. Why? There are
also on-farm questions: What causes E. coli to show up in some animals and
not others? Are there ways to prevent it from appearing or multiplying? This
would be the ultimate in prevention: Can we stop pathogens from showing up
in the first place? Dr. Dale Hancock is doing some very interesting work at
Washington State on these issues.

          Some of the new technologies we're developing are equally fascinating.
I understand that there is work underway to adapt Gulf War technology that
identifies nerve gas in the air for use in detecting pathogens on food. It
would work sort of like night-vision goggles that arm our eyes with the
ability to quickly and easily spot microbial threats.

     There are also existing technologies, like irradiation. FDA recently
cleared the practice for use on meat. USDA's now working on a regulation,
but the jury of public opinion is still out. Of course, increased public
concern over food safety might make it more popular today than it has been
over the years for poultry.

     But clearly, as we look ahead to the next generation of food safety
challenges, increasingly we look to science and technology for answers. This
Administration recognized this in our White House Food Safety Initiative,
investing in cutting-edge research; enhanced inspections; a catchy, easy-to-understand consumer education campaign; and -- probably most of interest to
all of you -- a national high-tech early warning system to prevent food-borne illness. 

     The early warning system helps us dramatically cut down the time it
takes to identify and get to the source of an outbreak. We can now do in 24
hours what -- just a few years ago -- would have taken two weeks. Just a few
years ago, to try and link a person's illness to an outbreak or get at the
source of the problem would have required mailing samples around the country
and conducting hundreds of hours of lab work. Now, folks can enter the
genetic fingerprint of a particular pathogen into a national database, and
the computer quickly sorts through all the entries for a match -- saving
time, saving money, saving lives. 

     This system is not unlike what law enforcement uses to track
criminals. A police officer plugs in a suspect's fingerprints and instantly
gets any criminal record or outstanding warrants. Our scientists can get a
similar  rap sheet' on a pathogen -- everything from its link to an
outbreak, to its known sources, to the toxins it produces. I want to commend
the work done at the Washington state public health lab which is among a
handful of state labs around the country that have joined with CDC in doing
DNA fingerprinting. In early February, this database will be available
nationwide, marking a world of difference in fighting outbreaks. Anyone
who's been involved in these efforts knows what a difference every day, hour
and minute makes in tracking the culprit.

     DNA fingerprinting enabled Dr. Kobayashi and his team to quickly
pinpoint the Odwalla outbreak involving unpasteurized apple juice. It also
enabled us to identify the Hudson outbreak. The state lab in Colorado
plugged their strains into the national database, spotted the outbreak, and
e-mailed the information to the CDC. CDC was then able to link the illnesses
to hamburger thanks to DNA data on the food side of the equation that was
provided by USDA's lab in Athens, Georgia. In the Pacific Northwest
outbreak, which was before we had this rapid response capability, 732 people
became ill before we could identify the problem. In the Hudson case, we
stopped the outbreak at 16 illnesses. Our goal is to keep bringing that
number down, but we have made dramatic progress.

     I say  we' for a reason. Our ability to work across federal, state,
university and private lines will be critical to our efforts. Food is now
produced, processed and moved quickly around the country -- in massive
quantities. The days where the norm is food-borne illness linked to local
church picnics are likely to be subsumed by outbreaks with a far greater
geographic reach, requiring a national community of scientists to work
together. We are building that community today.

     In looking ahead, the increasingly central role of science and public
health experts in fighting the next generation of food safety battles is
obvious to me. But it would be far too easy to put everything on your
shoulders. You must give us the scientific answers and technological
breakthroughs. But government must ensure that you get the resources you
need to get the job done right.

     Before I proceed, I should have you know that this Administration is
under strict orders not to reveal what's in President Clinton's 1999 budget.
But I made a special phone call, and got permission to share some good news
with all of you. We know from the State of the Union Address that this will
be the first balanced budget in a generation which means that we're going to
see some tough decisions on funding priorities. 

     I know that has some concerned about the future of our food safety
efforts. Don't be. As the federal budget comes down, the federal food safety
budget will go up -- way, way up. In 1998, we increased food safety
investments by $43.5 million. For 1999, President Clinton will propose an
increase of $101 million, over and above the 1998 levels, to continue high-priority food safety efforts -- from enhanced inspections to cutting-edge
research and surveillance. 

     This is a show of faith in the work of many of the people in this
room. It is a reflection of the strong desire of the American people for a
food safety revolution. And, it is a sign of respect for the many families
who have worked through their own tragedies to push government, industry,
consumers, and the scientific community to rise to one of the greatest
public health challenges of our time. I want to thank the scientific
community here in Washington for the pioneering role you have played on food
safety. I am grateful for all that you have done. But with this new,
invigorated commitment, it is my hope that your greatest achievements are
yet ahead. This Administration will support you every step of the way. Thank
you.
                                 

                                #

NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. 
Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov