Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the Federal 

Workforce and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT 

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 OVERSEEING THE U.S. 

FOOD SUPPLY 

Steps Should be Taken to 

Reduce Overlapping 

Inspections and Related 

Activities 

Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-05-549T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-549T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert A. 

Robinson at (202) 512-3841 or 

robinsonr@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-549T, a testimony to 

the Subcommittee on the Federal 

Workforce and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

May 17, 2005

OVERSEEING THE U.S. FOOD SUPPLY

Steps Should Be Taken to Reduce 

Overlapping Federal Inspections and 

Related Activities 

USDA and FDA have primary responsibility for overseeing the safety of the 

U.S. food supply; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service also play key roles. In carrying out their 

responsibilities, these agencies spend resources on a number of overlapping 

activities, particularly inspection/enforcement, training, research, and 

rulemaking, for both domestic and imported food. For example, both USDA 

and FDA conduct similar inspections at 1,451 dual jurisdiction 

establishments—facilities that produce foods regulated by both agencies, as 

shown below. 

To better manage the fragmented federal system, these agencies have 

entered into at least 71 interagency agreements—about a third of them 

highlight the need to reduce duplication and overlap or make efficient and 

effective use of resources. The agencies do not take full advantage of these 

agreements because they do not have adequate mechanisms for tracking 

them and, in some cases, do not fully implement them. 

Selected industry associations, food companies, consumer groups, and 

academic experts disagree on the extent of overlap, on how best to improve 

the federal system, and on whether to consolidate food safety-related 

functions into a single agency. However, they agreed that laws and 

regulations should be modernized to more effectively and efficiently control 

food safety hazards. 

As GAO recently reported, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom also had fragmented 

systems. These countries took steps to consolidate food safety functions—

each country modified its food safety laws and established a single agency to 

lead food safety management or enforcement of food safety legislation. 

GAO has issued many reports 

documenting problems resulting 

from the fragmented nature of the 

federal food safety system—a 

system based on 30 primary laws. 

This testimony summarizes GAO’s 

most recent work on the federal 

system for ensuring the safety of 

the U.S. food supply. It provides (1) 

an overview of food safety 

functions, (2) examples of 

overlapping and duplicative 

inspection and training activities, 

and (3) observations on efforts to 

better manage the system through 

interagency agreements. It also 

provides information on other 

countries’ experiences with 

consolidation and the views of key 

stakeholders on possible 

consolidation in the United States. 

What GAO Recommends

In the past, GAO has recommended 

that the Congress consider 

fundamental restructuring to 

ensure the effective use of scarce 

government resources. In the 

report that the Subcommittee is 

releasing today, GAO recognizes 

that, short of reorganization, other 

improvements can be made to help 

reduce overlap and duplication and 

to leverage existing resources. For 

example, the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) could use 

existing authority to commission 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) inspections of dual 

jurisdiction establishments. 
Page 1 GAO-05-549T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to address the Subcommittee’s interest in 

examining the potential for reorganizing the federal system for ensuring 

the safety of the U.S. food supply. As the Comptroller General recently 

testified, there is a need to bring government and its programs in line with 

21st century realities.1

 He noted that many, if not most, current federal 

programs and policies, were designed decades ago to respond to trends 

and challenges that existed at the time. These programs can be updated 

and modernized by improving their targeting and efficiency through, 

among other things, consolidating facilities and programs and streamlining 

and reengineering operations and processes. The Comptroller General 

specifically cited the federal food safety system as an area where 

opportunities for crosscutting program integration exist. 

In testimony last year before this Subcommittee, we described the 

fragmented nature of our federal food safety system—one based on 30 

principal laws related to food safety that are administered by 15 agencies.2

We stated that the patchwork nature of the system governing inspection 

and related activities hampers efforts to address the risks of inadvertent or 

deliberate food contamination. Under this system, different agencies are 

responsible for specific food commodities and have significantly different 

authorities for carrying out these responsibilities. As a result, federal 

agencies are spending resources on similar activities to ensure that the 

food supply is safe, wholesome, and appropriately labeled. For example, 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors examine seafood 

processors; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors examine 

meat- and poultry-processing facilities; and both agencies inspect the same 

food-processing facilities if the facilities produce food products under the 

jurisdiction of both agencies. For example, USDA inspects a canning 

facility that produces soup containing meat or poultry; if the facility also 

produces soup containing seafood, FDA inspects it as well. USDA spent 

$665 million and FDA spent $219 million, totaling $884 million—and 

dedicated 8,787 and 1,844 full-time equivalent staff, respectively—for 

inspection and enforcement activities in fiscal year 2003. USDA and FDA 

provided updated expenditures for fiscal year 2004 totaling $958 million—

 1

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, 

GAO-05-352T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005). 

2

GAO, Federal Food Safety and Security System: Fundamental Restructuring is Needed 

to Address Fragmentation and Overlap, GAO-04-588T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-05-549T 

and dedicated 8,733 and 1,812 full-time equivalent staff, respectively, for 

these activities.3

We have recommended changes to the federal system for ensuring the 

safety of our food supply. In particular, we recommended that the 

Congress consider enacting comprehensive, uniform, and risk-based food 

safety legislation to streamline inspection and enforcement efforts, and 

consolidate food safety functions by establishing a single, independent 

food safety agency or by designating one current agency as the lead 

agency for all food safety inspection matters. Such an overhaul would 

enable the federal system to more effectively and efficiently accomplish its 

mission and meet new food safety challenges, such as the emerging 

concerns about the deliberate contamination of our food supply through 

bioterrorism. 

In my testimony today, I will discuss GAO’s most recent work conducted 

at the request of this Subcommittee and other Congressional requesters. 

This GAO report, which is being released today, examines the need to 

reduce overlap and better leverage resources.4

 It provides (1) an overview 

of the government’s food safety functions, activities, and expenditures, (2) 

specific examples of overlapping and, at times, duplicative inspection and 

training activities, and (3) observations on the agencies’ efforts to manage 

this fragmented system through dozens of interagency agreements. At your 

request, I will also provide a synopsis of selected industry and other 

stakeholders’ views on the current federal approach to food inspection. 

Finally, I will offer some observations on the experiences of several 

countries that have recently undertaken consolidation efforts to achieve 

more effective and efficient management of their food safety programs; 

these observations are based on our recent report on foreign countries’ 

experiences consolidating food safety functions and activities.5

 My 

 3

In 2003, USDA inspected about 6,500 meat, poultry, and egg-product facilities, and FDA 

inspected approximately 57,000 food-processing facilities. In 2004, the agencies inspected 

about 6,000 and 62,000 facilities, respectively. 

4

GAO, Oversight of Food Safety Activities: Federal Agencies Should Pursue Opportunities 

to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage Resources, GAO-05-213 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 

2005). 

5

GAO, Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety 

Systems, GAO-05-212 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 2005). The information on other 

countries’ food safety systems, including descriptions of laws, is based almost exclusively 

on interviews with and documentation provided by high-level food safety officials from the 

seven countries we examined, as well as representatives from the food industry and 

consumer groups. 
Page 3 GAO-05-549T 

testimony also draws on our wide-ranging past reports and testimonies on 

the fragmented nature of the federal system and upon completed work and 

previous testimonies on issues related to government organization and 

transformation. (See app. II.) We conducted our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In the interest of clarity, I want to note at the outset that we are defining 

overlaps as similar food safety-related activities being performed by more 

than one agency—such as the training of food inspectors. We are defining 

duplication as essentially identical activities performed by more than one 

agency—such as inspecting the same food-processing facility for 

compliance with sanitation and/or good manufacturing practices 

requirements. 

The safety and quality of the U.S. food supply is governed by a highly 

complex system stemming from 30 principal laws related to food safety 

that are administered by 15 agencies. In addition, dozens of interagency 

agreements are intended to address a wide range of food safety-related 

activities. The federal system is supplemented by the states, which have 

their own statutes, regulations, and agencies for regulating and inspecting 

the safety and quality of food products. USDA and FDA, within the 

Department of Health and Human Services, have most of the regulatory 

responsibilities for ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply and 

account for most federal food safety spending. Under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products 

Inspection Act, USDA is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and 

certain egg products. FDA, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act, and the Public Health Service Act, regulates all other foods, including 

whole (or shell) eggs, seafood, milk, grain products, and fruits and 

vegetables.6

 Appendix 1 summarizes the agencies’ food safety 

responsibilities. 

The existing statutes also give the agencies different regulatory and 

enforcement authorities. For example, food products under FDA’s 

jurisdiction may be marketed without the agency’s prior approval. On the 

other hand, food products under USDA’s jurisdiction must generally be 

inspected and approved as meeting federal standards before being sold to 

 6

Under the Egg Products Inspection Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

regulates whole eggs, while the Secretary of Agriculture regulates egg products. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-549T 

the public. Under current law, UDSA inspectors maintain continuous 

inspection at slaughter facilities and examine each slaughtered meat and 

poultry carcass. They also visit each processing facility at least once 

during each operating day. For foods under FDA’s jurisdiction, however, 

federal law does not mandate the frequency of inspections (which FDA 

typically conducts every 1 to 5 years). Although recent legislative changes 

have strengthened FDA’s enforcement authorities, the division of 

inspection authorities and other food safety responsibilities has not 

changed. 

As we have reported, USDA traditionally has had more comprehensive 

enforcement authority than FDA; however, the Public Health Security and 

Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 granted FDA 

additional enforcement authorities that are similar to USDA’s.7

 For 

example, FDA now requires all food processors to register with the agency 

so that they can be inspected. FDA also has the authority to temporarily 

detain food products when it has credible evidence that the products 

present a threat of serious adverse health consequences. Moreover, FDA 

requires that entities such as the manufacturers, processors, and receivers 

of imported foods keep records so that FDA can identify the immediate 

previous source and the immediate subsequent recipients of food. This 

record-keeping authority is designed to help FDA track foods in the event 

of future health emergencies, such as terrorism-related contamination. In 

addition, FDA now requires advance notice of imported food shipments 

under its jurisdiction. Despite these additional authorities, important 

differences remain between the agencies’ inspection and enforcement 

authorities. For example, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act require that meat and poultry products be 

inspected and approved for sale (i.e., stamped by USDA inspectors). The 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require premarket 

approval, in general, for FDA-regulated food products. 

Finally, following the events of September 11, 2001, in addition to their 

established food safety and quality responsibilities, the federal agencies 

began to address the potential for deliberate contamination of agriculture 

and food products. In 2001, by executive order, the President added the 

food industry to the list of critical infrastructure sectors that need 

protection from possible terrorist attack. As a result of this order, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishing the Department of Homeland 

 7

Pub. L. No. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594 (2002). 
Page 5 GAO-05-549T 

Security, and subsequent presidential directives, the Department of 

Homeland Security provides overall coordination on how to protect the 

U.S. food supply from deliberate contamination. The Public Health 

Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 also 

included numerous provisions to strengthen and enhance food safety and 

security. 

Many proposals have been made to consolidate the U.S. food safety 

system. In 2001, parallel Senate and House bills proposed consolidating 

inspections and other food safety responsibilities in a single independent 

agency. In 2004 and 2005, legislation was again introduced in the Senate 

and the House to establish a single food safety agency. This proposed 

legislation would combine the two food safety regulatory programs of 

USDA and FDA, along with a voluntary seafood inspection program 

operated by the National Marines Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the 

Department of Commerce. In addition, in 1998, the National Academy of 

Sciences recommended integrating the U.S. food safety system and 

suggested several options, including a single food safety agency.8

 More 

recently, the National Commission on the Public Service recommended 

that government programs designed to achieve similar outcomes be 

combined into one agency and that agencies with similar or related 

missions be combined into large departments.9

 The commission chairman 

testified before the Congress that important health and safety protections 

fail when responsibility for regulation is dispersed among several 

departments, as is the case with the U.S. system. 

The four agencies we examined—USDA, FDA, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and NMFS—are involved in key program 

functions related to food safety. These functions include inspection and 

enforcement, research, risk assessment, education and outreach, 

rulemaking and standard setting, surveillance and monitoring, food 

security, and administration. These agencies spend resources on similar 

food safety activities to ensure the safety of different food products. 

Table 1 illustrates similar activities that these agencies conduct. 

 8

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Ensuring Safe Food From 

Production to Consumption (Washington, D.C.: 1998). 

9

Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business For America: 

Revitalizing the Federal Government For the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: 2003). 

Federal Agencies’ 

Food Safety-Related 

Functions, Activities, 

and Expenditures 
Page 6 GAO-05-549T 

Table 1: Examples of Similar Food Safety Activities 

Food safety program 

function Activity USDA FDA EPA NMFS 

Inspection/Enforcement Inspection of domestic food-processing facilities • • •

 Visits to foreign countries or firms to conduct inspections and/or 

evaluate foreign food safety systems • • •

 Inspection of imported food at ports of entry • • 

 Training inspectors • • •

 Maintenance of inspection record database • • •

 Support to state enforcement efforts (retail-level food safety) • • • 

 Laboratory analysis of samples collected at food-processing 

facilities (to identify potential contamination) • • •

Research Research on pathogen reduction • • •

 Research on foodborne chemical contaminants (such as pesticides 

or dioxins) or biological contaminants (such as e-coli or salmonella) • • • •

Risk assessment Risk assessment of food contaminants • • • •

 Sample collection and/or analysis of pesticide residues to inform 

risk assessment • • •

Education/Outreach Development and delivery of consumer education (such as 

consumer hotlines or pamphlets) • • • •

 Development and delivery of industry guidance (such as guidance 

regarding regulations) • • • •

 International harmonization of standards • • • •

Surveillance/Monitoring Participation in FoodNet (active surveillance for foodborne 

diseases) • • 

 Participation in PulseNet (early warning system for food illness 

outbreak) • • 

Rulemaking/Standard setting HACCP rule development and promulgationa• • •

b

Source: GAO analysis of documents obtained from, and discussions with, USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS officials. 

a

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations require food processors to maintain 

a plan identifying critical points in the production line where contamination is more likely to occur and 

adopt control techniques to prevent or reduce contamination. Currently, USDA requires all meat- and 

poultry-processing facilities to comply with mandatory HACCP regulations, and FDA requires that 

seafood- and juice-processing facilities comply with mandatory HACCP regulations. 

b

NMFS participated in developing FDA’s seafood HACCP rule. 
Page 7 GAO-05-549T 

In fiscal year 2003, the four federal agencies spent nearly $1.7 billion on 

food safety-related activities.10 As figure 1 shows, USDA and FDA together 

are responsible for nearly 90 percent of federal expenditures for food 

safety. 

Figure 1: USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS Food Safety-Related Expenditures, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

As figure 2 shows, most of the agencies’ expenditures were incurred for 

inspection/enforcement activities, including inspections of domestic and 

imported food. However, these expenditures are not based on the volume 

of foods regulated by the agencies or consumed by the public. USDA’s 

activities account for almost three-quarters of the agencies’ inspection and 

enforcement expenditures. That is, the majority of federal expenditures 

 10The total food safety expenditures provided in this testimony are derived by summing 

data for specific food safety activities (monitoring/surveillance, inspection/enforcement, 

education/outreach, research, and risk assessment) presented in the National Academy of 

Sciences’ 1998 report Ensuring Safe Food From Production to Consumption. To capture 

other relevant activities, we included three additional activities—administration, food 

security, and rulemaking/standard setting—in the agencies’ expenditures. At the time GAO 

initiated its review in May 2004, the agencies could only provide complete expenditures by 

these categories for fiscal year 2003. Because the agencies generally do not track 

expenditures in this manner, we were only able to update some of these data to reflect 

fiscal year 2004 expenditures. 

60%

10%

29%

1%

NMFS - $21,999,941

USDA - $1,015,852,478

Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from, and discussions with, USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS officials.

FDA - $480,379,000

EPA - $160,713,000
Page 8 GAO-05-549T 

for food safety inspection are directed toward USDA’s programs for 

ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products; however, USDA is 

responsible for regulating about 20 percent of the food supply. In contrast, 

FDA, which is responsible for regulating about 80 percent of the food 

supply, accounted for only about 24 percent of these expenditures. 

Figure 2: Food Safety Expenditures by Agency and Function, Fiscal Year 2003 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

NMFS

EPA

USDA

FDA

Inspection/ 

enforcement

Research Risk 

assessment

Education/ 

outreach

Surveillance/ 

monitoring

Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from, and discussions with, USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS officials.

Dollars in millions
Page 9 GAO-05-549T 

As a result of the multiple laws governing food safety, several federal 

agencies conduct activities—inspections of domestic and imported foods, 

training, research, risk assessment, education, and rulemaking—that can 

serve overlapping, if not identical, purposes. 

USDA and FDA conduct overlapping, and even duplicative, inspections at 

more than 1,400 domestic facilities that produce foods such as canned 

goods and frozen entrees. Both agencies inspect these facilities because 

each has statutory responsibility for the safety of different foods or food 

ingredients. USDA inspects canning facilities at least daily if the company 

produces canned beans containing meat and poultry. If the facility 

produces canned beans without meat or poultry, FDA also inspects it, with 

a frequency ranging from 1 to 5 years. USDA and FDA inspections have 

common features—both agencies spend inspection resources to verify that 

facilities are sanitary and follow good manufacturing practices, such as 

verifying that facilities do not have rodent or insect infestations. 

At jointly regulated facilities, both USDA and FDA inspectors verify that 

HACCP systems are in place. In these instances, each agency verifies that 

the facility has created and implemented a HACCP plan specific to the 

products that the agency regulates. Each agency’s regulations require the 

facility to maintain separate HACCP plans for each product and to develop 

separate analyses of critical control points and separate strategies to 

mitigate or eliminate food contaminants. While separate HACCP plans are 

generally necessary to address the specific hazards associated with 

specific food products, maintaining these separate plans, and the 

associated inspections and documentation that each agency requires, can 

be burdensome. For example, at a facility we visited that produces both 

crab cakes and breaded chicken, the manager must maintain a seafood 

HACCP plan and a poultry HACCP plan. He said that although both plans 

have similar elements, each agency’s inspectors expect different levels of 

detail for the plans—something the manager finds confusing and difficult 

to comply with. 

USDA and FDA inspections of the same food-processing facility represent, 

in our view, an inefficient use of scarce government resources. For 

example, at a plant that produces both meat and seafood products, a 

USDA inspector told us that as part of his daily, routine inspections he 

walks through the seafood processing and storage section of the plant. 

(See fig. 3.) However, because FDA regulates seafood, the USDA inspector 

does not monitor or inspect the seafood storage section. The inspector 

noted that, with minimum training on seafood temperature controls, he 

Federal Food Safety 

Agencies Conduct 

Overlapping Activities 

USDA and FDA 

Inspections of Jointly 

Regulated Facilities 

Overlap 
Page 10 GAO-05-549T 

could inspect this section of the plant as well. USDA headquarters officials 

said the agency’s inspectors are capable of taking on FDA’s inspection 

responsibilities at jointly regulated facilities, given the proper resources 

and training. 

Figure 3: Diagram of a Jointly Regulated Food-Processing Facility 

USDA and FDA have new tools that could help reduce overlap in 

inspections. Under the Bioterrorism Act, FDA could commission USDA 

inspectors, who are present every day at these jointly regulated facilities, 

Path of the USDA inspector.

Seafood processing and storage

Meat processing

Meat storage

USDA inspects the

facility daily

FDA inspects the

facility annually

USDA may pass through this area but has no jurisdiction to conduct inspections.

Source: GAO observation of a jointly regulated establishment.

Meat and seafood shipping
Page 11 GAO-05-549T 

to inspect FDA-regulated food.11 In doing so, FDA could reduce 

overlapping inspections and redirect resources to other facilities for which 

it has sole jurisdiction. While they did not disagree in principle with the 

benefits of such an arrangement, FDA officials said that the savings would 

be somewhat offset because FDA would likely have to reimburse USDA 

for the costs of those inspections. Furthermore, FDA officials said that 

they do not currently plan to pursue this option and have not conducted 

any analyses of the costs or savings associated with it. USDA officials 

commented that their inspectors are fully occupied and that they would 

need to be trained before conducting joint inspections. 

Overlaps also occur at seafood processing facilities that both FDA and 

NMFS inspect. NMFS currently inspects approximately 275 domestic 

seafood facilities, and FDA inspects some of these plants as part of FDA’s 

surveillance program. NMFS conducts safety and sanitation inspections, as 

well as other product quality inspections, on a fee-for-service basis. NMFS 

inspectors verify sanitation procedures, HACCP compliance, and good 

manufacturing practices—many of the same components of an FDA 

inspection. Although the two agencies’ seafood safety inspections are 

similar, FDA does not take into account whether NMFS has already 

inspected a particular facility when determining how frequently its 

inspectors should visit that same facility. 

FDA officials said they do not rely on NMFS inspections for two reasons. 

First, FDA officials believe that NMFS has a potential conflict of interest 

because companies pay NMFS for these inspections; and therefore, as a 

regulatory agency, FDA should not rely on them. NMFS officials disagreed, 

stating that their fee-for-service structure does not affect their ability to 

conduct objective inspections. Furthermore, they noted, when NMFS 

inspectors find noncompliance with FDA regulations, they refer 

companies to FDA and/or to state regulatory authorities. NMFS officials 

stated that companies that contract with NMFS need the agency’s 

certification in order to satisfy their customers. Second, FDA officials 

believe, it is difficult for FDA to determine which facilities NMFS inspects 

at any given time because NMFS’ inspection schedules fluctuate often, 

according to changes in NMFS’ contracts with individual companies. 

 11Under the act, the agencies would have to enter into a memorandum of understanding 

that would include provisions to ensure adequate training of USDA officials and to address 

reimbursement. 

FDA and NMFS 

Inspections of Domestic 

Seafood Processors 

Overlap 
Page 12 GAO-05-549T 

However, we believe that if FDA were to recognize the results of NMFS’ 

inspection findings in targeting its resources, it could decrease or 

eliminate inspections at facilities that NMFS inspectors find are in 

compliance with sanitation and HACCP regulations. 

Both USDA and FDA maintain inspectors at 18 U.S. ports of entry to 

inspect imported food but do not share inspection resources. In fiscal year 

2004, USDA spent almost $16 million on imported food inspections, and 

FDA spent about $121 million. According to USDA inspectors we 

interviewed, FDA-regulated imported foods are sometimes handled and 

stored in USDA-approved import inspection facilities. Although USDA 

inspectors are present at these ports more often than FDA inspectors, 

USDA inspectors have no jurisdiction over FDA-regulated products and, 

therefore, the FDA-regulated products may remain at the facilities for 

some time awaiting FDA inspection. 

FDA and USDA are also not sharing information they gather during their 

respective evaluations and/or visits to foreign countries to assess food 

safety conditions. For example, USDA evaluated 34 countries in 2004 to 

determine whether these countries’ food safety systems for ensuring the 

safety of meat and poultry are equivalent to that of the United States. FDA 

conducted inspections in 6 of these countries, but officials said they do not 

take USDA’s evaluations of the foreign countries’ food safety systems into 

account when determining which countries to visit and that USDA’s 

findings would be of little use to FDA because they relate to products 

under USDA’s jurisdiction.12

Both USDA and FDA spend resources to provide similar training to food 

inspection personnel. USDA spent about $13.4 million and FDA spent 

about $1.7 million in fiscal year 2004. We found that, to a considerable 

extent, food inspection training addresses the same subjects—such as 

plant sanitation, good manufacturing practices, and HACCP principles, 

albeit for different food products. FDA’s online curriculum includes over 

106 courses that address topics common to both USDA and FDA, as well 

as courses that are specific to FDA’s regulations and enforcement 

authorities. NMFS currently uses 74 of these courses to train its seafood 

 12The countries that both USDA and FDA visited were Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, 

Hungary, Mexico, and Canada. 

USDA and FDA Both 

Inspect Imported Food 

USDA and FDA Have 

Similar Training Programs 

for Food Inspectors 
Page 13 GAO-05-549T 

inspectors. NMFS officials cite benefits to using FDA’s online training, 

such as accessibility to training materials at times other than when their 

inspectors are “on duty,” as well as cost savings attributable to reduced 

expenses for course materials and management. 

We identified 71 interagency agreements that the principal food safety 

agencies—USDA, FDA, EPA, and NMFS—have entered into to better 

protect the public health by addressing jurisdictional boundaries, 

coordinating activities, reducing overlaps, and leveraging resources. About 

one-third (24) of the agreements highlight the need to reduce duplication 

and overlap or make efficient and effective use of resources. However, the 

agencies cannot take full advantage of these agreements because they do 

not have adequate mechanisms for tracking them and, in some cases, do 

not effectively implement them. Agency officials had difficulty identifying 

the food safety agreements they are party to, and in many instances, the 

agencies did not agree on the number of agreements they had entered into. 

In addition, for the two comprehensive inspection-related agreements that 

we examined in detail, the agencies are not ensuring that their provisions 

are adhered to or that the overall objectives of the agreements are being 

achieved. For example: 

• USDA and FDA are not fully implementing an agreement to exchange 

information about jointly regulated facilities in order to permit more 

efficient use of both their resources and contribute to improved public 

health protection. Under this agreement, the agencies are to share 

inspection information, but FDA does not routinely consider compliance 

information from USDA when deciding how to target its inspection 

resources. Also, the agreement calls for the agencies to explore the 

feasibility of granting each other access to appropriate computermonitoring systems so that each agency can track inspection findings. 

However, the agencies maintain separate databases and the inspectors 

with whom we spoke continue to be largely unaware of a facility’s history 

of compliance with the other agency’s regulations. Inspectors told us that 

compliance information might be helpful when inspecting jointly regulated 

facilities so they could focus on past violations. 

• An agreement between FDA and NMFS recognizes the agencies’ related 

responsibilities at seafood-processing establishments. The agreement 

details actions the agencies can take to enable each to discharge its 

responsibilities as effectively as possible, minimizing FDA inspections at 

these facilities. However, we found that FDA is not using information from 

Interagency 

Agreements Are Not 

Reducing Overlaps 
Page 14 GAO-05-549T 

NMFS inspections, which could allow it to reduce the number of 

inspections at those facilities. Also, FDA rarely notifies NMFS of seizure 

actions it takes against NMFS-inspected plants, as outlined in the 

agreement. Although FDA is not implementing the agreement, it has 

recognized the potential benefits of working with NMFS to leverage 

resources. In a January 2004 letter to the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere,13 the then-Commissioner of FDA noted, 

among other things, that using NMFS inspectors could be cost effective 

because the NMFS inspectors may already be on-site and the FDA 

inspector therefore would not have to travel to conduct an inspection. 

The stakeholders we contacted—selected industry associations, foodprocessing companies, consumer groups, and academic experts—disagree 

on the extent to which overlaps exist and on how best to improve the 

federal structure. Most of these stakeholders agree that the laws and 

regulations governing the system should be modernized so that scientific 

and technological advancements can be used to more effectively and 

efficiently control current and emerging food safety hazards. However, 

they differed about whether to consolidate food safety inspection and 

related functions into a single federal agency. 

• Industry Associations: Representatives of industry associations do not 

see the need to consolidate food safety-related functions, but they see the 

need for minor changes within the existing regulatory framework to 

enhance communication and coordination among the existing agencies. 

• Food Processing Companies: Representatives from the individual food 

companies inspected by USDA and FDA believe that consolidation would 

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and ensure that 

food safety resources are distributed based on the best available science. 

They also said that overlaps can be burdensome or confusing. The 

representatives did not see the added value of FDA’s once-a-year (or less) 

inspections because USDA inspectors already visit their plants daily. At 

one company, USDA and FDA inspectors gave the plant manager 

contradictory instructions—the USDA inspector did not want the 

company to paint sterilization equipment because he determined that paint 

chips could contaminate the food; whereas the FDA inspector told the 

 13NMFS is located within the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Stakeholders Disagree 

on the Significance of 

Overlapping Activities 

and on How to 

Improve the Federal 

Structure for 

Performing Food 

Safety Inspections 

and Related Activities 
Page 15 GAO-05-549T 

company to paint the same equipment because he determined that it 

would be easier to identify sanitation problems on lightly painted surfaces. 

• Academics and Consumer Groups: Academics and consumer groups 

support consolidating food safety inspection and related functions into a 

single agency. One group stated that the laws do not build prevention into 

the farm-to-table continuum and divide responsibility and accountability 

for food safety among federal agencies. Further, according to this group, 

the laws prevent risk-based allocation of resources across the federal food 

safety agencies. 

The division of responsibility among several government agencies 

responsible for food safety is not unique to the United States. According to 

food safety officials in seven countries whose consolidations of food 

safety systems we examined, they faced similar fragmentation and division 

of responsibilities in their systems. As reported in February 2005,14 we 

examined the efforts of Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom to streamline and 

consolidate their food safety systems. We found that, in each case, these 

countries (1) modified existing laws to achieve the necessary 

consolidation and (2) established a single agency to lead food safety 

management or enforcement of food safety legislation. 

We acknowledge that these countries have smaller populations than the 

United States, but they face several similarities in their efforts to ensure 

safe food. These countries, like the United States, are high-income 

countries in which consumers have very high expectations about the 

safety of their food supplies.15 In addition, U.S. consumers’ spending on 

food as a percentage of total spending is somewhat similar to that of these 

seven countries, ranging from about 10 percent in the United States to 

over 16 percent in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In general, highincome countries tend to spend a smaller percentage of their income on 

food than low-income countries. 

 14GAO, Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety 

Systems, GAO-05-212 (Washington, D.C., Feb. 22, 2005). 

15All seven countries, as well as the United States, are in the World Bank’s high-income 

category. 

Other Countries Have 

Modified Laws and 

Consolidated Food 

Safety Functions 
Page 16 GAO-05-549T 

The seven countries’ approaches for modifying their systems, of course, 

differed. For example, Denmark created a new federal agency in which it 

consolidated almost all food safety functions and activities, including 

inspections, which were previously distributed among several government 

agencies. In contrast, Germany’s new food safety agency functions as a 

coordinating body to lead food safety management, while the German 

federal states continue to be responsible for overseeing food inspections 

performed by local governments. These countries had two primary 

reasons for consolidating their food safety systems—public concern about 

the safety of the food supply and the need to improve program 

effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, an important factor motivating 

the European Union (EU) countries’ consolidations has been the need to 

comply with recently adopted EU legislation. These EU changes aim to 

harmonize and simplify its food safety legislation and to create a single, 

transparent set of food safety rules that is applicable to all EU-member 

countries. 

As we previously reported, Canada reorganized its food safety system in 

1997. As part of its consolidation of food safety functions, Canada also 

assigned responsibilities for animal disease control and feed inspections to 

the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). As a result, CFIA is 

responsible for detecting animal diseases that may affect human health, 

such as mad cow disease in cattle as well as for preventing the 

introduction and spread of the disease through animal feed.16

Not unexpectedly, the countries faced challenges in implementing their 

new systems. Many countries had to determine (1) whether to place the 

new agency within the existing health or agriculture ministry or establish 

it as a stand-alone agency and (2) what responsibilities the new agency 

would have. For example, Ireland chose to place its new independent food 

 16In the United States, USDA is primarily responsible for detecting mad cow disease, and 

FDA is primarily responsible for preventing its introduction and spread through animal 

feed. As we recently reported, FDA has not always notified USDA when it has discovered 

that cattle may have consumed feed containing prohibited material. This lapse has been 

occurring even though FDA’s guidance calls for such communication (GAO, Mad Cow 

Disease: FDA’s Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but Oversight Weaknesses 

Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness, GAO-05-101 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005)). 

Despite this lapse in communication regarding animal feed, an international panel that 

reviewed USDA’s epidemiological investigation conducted in response to an animal that 

tested positive for mad cow disease in the United States in December 2003 found that 

USDA’s investigation conformed to international standards. A separate international panel 

stated that Canada’s investigation of its first case of the disease was comprehensive, 

thorough, and timely. 
Page 17 GAO-05-549T 

safety agency under its existing Department of Health and Children, in 

part, to separate food safety responsibilities from the promotion of the 

food industry, which is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture 

and Food. On the other hand, to separate food safety regulation from 

political pressures, New Zealand established a semi-autonomous food 

safety agency attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 

Officials in several countries also cited challenges in helping employees 

assimilate into the new agency’s culture and support its priorities. 

As expected, most countries incurred start-up costs in reorganizing, 

including the costs associated with acquiring buildings and purchasing 

new laboratory equipment. Some countries also reported that they 

experienced a temporary reduction in the quantity of food safety activities 

performed due to consolidation-related disruptions. 

None of the countries has conducted an analysis to compare the 

effectiveness and efficiency of its consolidated food safety system with 

that of the previous system. However, government officials in these 

countries as well as other stakeholders consistently stated that 

consolidation of their systems has led to significant qualitative 

improvements in operations that enhance effectiveness or efficiency. 

According to these officials, the benefits included reduced overlaps in 

inspections, more targeted inspections based on food safety risk, more 

consistent or timely enforcement of food safety laws and regulations, and 

greater clarity in responsibilities. 

Danish officials stated that consolidation and the accompanying reform of 

food safety laws facilitated risk-based inspections. The frequency of most 

inspections is now based on an individual food product’s safety risk and 

on an individual company’s food safety record, not on agencies’ 

jurisdiction, as was the case before consolidation. As a result, the 

frequency of inspections at some food processing plants and of lower risk 

food products has been reduced, making more resources available for 

inspections of higher risk companies and foods. 

Government officials in Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark stated that 

some cost savings may be achieved as a result of changes that have 

already taken place or are expected from planned changes needed to 

complete their consolidation efforts. For example, Dutch officials said that 

reduced duplication in food safety inspections would likely result in 

decreased spending. In addition, they anticipate savings from an expected 

25-percent reduction in administrative and management personnel and 

from selling excess property. 
Page 18 GAO-05-549T 

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate key functions and activities that the governments 

of Denmark and Canada decided to consolidate in order to achieve more 

efficient food safety systems. 

Figure 4: Consolidation of Food Safety Entities in Denmark 

Note: The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration is responsible for almost all food safety 

responsibilities. Exceptions are the Plant Directorate, which is responsible for animal feed 

inspections, and the Directorate for Fisheries, which is responsible for inspection of fish on ships. 

These two agencies are in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries. 

Source: GAO diagram based on information provided by Danish Food Safety Officials. 

As of 1997 AAs of 1997 Ass 

 ooff  11999977

Current CCurrent Cuurrrreenntt

Ministry of

Agriculture

Standard setting and 

inspections 

(Meat and poultry 

processing)

Ministry of Family and 

Consumer Affairs

Danish Veterinary and Food 

Administration

(Standard setting and 

inspections)

Ministry of

Fisheries

Standard setting

and inspections

(All fish and seafood, 

including on fishing 

vessels and in 

processing plants)

Municipalities

Inspections

(Food processing 

plants, warehouses, 

and local retail stores)

Ministry of Health

Standard setting for 

Municipalities
Page 19 GAO-05-549T 

Figure 5: Consolidation of Food Safety Entities in Canada 

Note: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for all inspection/compliance activities, 

including inspections of imported/domestic products, laboratory and diagnostic support, crisis 

management and product recalls, and export certification. In addition to the responsibilities listed 

above, Health Canada is responsible for research and setting limits on the amount of a substance 

allowed in a food product. 

In recent years, many proposals from the Congress and others have been 

made to reform existing laws and consolidate the governmental structure 

for ensuring the safety of the food supply. As we have reported in the past, 

the current system is fragmented and causes inefficient use of resources, 

inconsistent oversight and enforcement, and ineffective coordination. We 

have recommended that the Congress consider statutory and 

organizational reforms, and we continue to believe that the benefits of 

establishing a single national system for the regulation of our food supply 

outweigh the costs. In making these recommendations, we fully recognize 

the time and effort needed to develop a reorganization plan and to transfer 

authorities, as necessary, under such a reorganization. 

Conclusions 

As of 1997 AAs of 1997 Ass ooff 11999977

Current CCurrent Cuurrrreenntt

Health Canada

Inspections, food policy

and risk assessment

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

Inspections, food policy 

and risk assessment

Fisheries and

Oceans Canada

Inspections, food policy

and risk assessment

Source: GAO diagram based on information provided by Canadian Food Safety Officials. 

Canadian Food

Inspection Agency

• Inspections of all food

• Animal and plant disease

control

Health Canada

Public health policy,

risk assessment, and

standard setting
Page 20 GAO-05-549T 

We also recognize that improvements short of restructuring the current 

system can be made to help reduce overlaps and duplication, and to 

leverage existing resources. Therefore, in the report that you are releasing 

today, we make several recommendations to that end. For example, if cost 

effective, we recommend that FDA, as authorized under the Bioterrorism 

Act, commission USDA inspectors to carry out inspections of FDAregulated foods at food establishments that are under their joint 

jurisdiction. We also recommend that USDA and FDA examine the 

feasibility and cost effectiveness of establishing a joint training program 

for their food inspectors. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Robert A. 

Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, (202) 

512-3841. Maria Cristina Gobin, Terrance N. Horner, Jr., Gary Brown, 

Katheryn Hubbell, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Katherine Raheb made 

key contributions to this statement. 

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements 
Page 21 GAO-05-549T 

Table 2: Federal Agencies’ Food Safety Responsibilities 

Department and/or agency Responsible for 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service All domestic and imported meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products 

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Protecting the health and value of U.S. 

agricultural resources (e.g., animals and plants) 

 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration 

Establishing quality standards, inspection 

procedures, and marketing of grain and other 

related products 

 Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)a Establishing quality and condition standards for 

dairy, fruit, vegetable, livestock, meat, poultry, 

and egg products 

 Agricultural Research Service Conducting food safety research 

 Economic Research Service Providing analyses of the economic issues 

affecting the safety of the U.S. food supply 

 National Agricultural Statistics Service Providing statistical data, including agricultural 

chemical usage data, related to the safety of 

the food supply 

 Cooperative State Research, Education and 

Extension Service 

Supporting food safety research, education, 

and extension programs in the land-grant 

university system and other partner 

organizations 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) All domestic and imported food products except 

meat, poultry, or processed egg products 

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) 

Protecting the nation’s public health, including 

foodborne illness surveillance 

Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Voluntary, fee-for-service examinations of 

seafood for safety and quality 

Environmental Protection Agency Regulating the use of pesticides and maximum 

allowable residue levels on food commodities 

and animal feed 

Department of the Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Enforcing laws covering the production, use, 

and distribution of alcoholic beverages 

Department of Homeland Securityb Coordinating agencies’ food security activities 

Federal Trade Commission Prohibiting false advertisements for food 

Source: GAO. 

Appendix I: Federal Agencies with Food 

Safety Responsibilities 
Page 22 GAO-05-549T 

a

According to USDA, AMS has no statutory authority in the area of food safety. However, the agency 

performs some functions related to food safety for several foods. For example, AMS graders monitor 

a shell egg surveillance program that identifies cracked and dirty eggs. In addition, AMS performs 

functions related to food safety for the National School Lunch Program. 

b

In 2001, by executive order, the President stated that the-then Office of Homeland Security, as part 

of its efforts to protect critical infrastructures, should coordinate efforts to protect livestock, agriculture, 

and food systems from terrorist attacks. In 2002, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), setting out the department’s responsibility to 

protect and secure critical infrastructures and transferring several food safety-related responsibilities 

to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result of the executive order, the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002 establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and subsequent presidential 

directives, the Department of Homeland Security provides overall coordination on the protection of 

the U.S. food supply from deliberate contamination. 
Page 23 GAO-05-549T 

Oversight of Food Safety Activities: Federal Agencies Should Pursue 

Opportunities to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage Resources. GAO-05-

213. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a 

Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214. 

Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2005. 

Mad Cow Disease: FDA’s Management of the Feed Ban Has Improved, but 

Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit Program Effectiveness. GAO-05-

101. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2005. 

Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food 

Safety Systems. GAO-05-212. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2005. 

Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete 

Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. GAO-05-51. Washington, D.C.: October 

7, 2004. 

Posthearing Questions Related to Fragmentation and Overlap in the 

Federal Food Safety System. GAO-04-832R. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 

2004. 

Federal Food Safety and Security System: Fundamental Restructuring Is 

Needed to Address Fragmentation and Overlap. GAO-04-588T. Washington, 

D.C.: March 30, 2004. 

Food Safety: FDA’s Imported Seafood Safety Program Shows Some 

Progress, but Further Improvements Are Needed. GAO-04-246. 

Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2004. 

Bioterrorism: A Threat to Agriculture and the Food Supply. GAO-04-259T. 

Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2003. 

Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve Security at Plum 

Island Animal Disease Center. GAO-03-847. Washington, D.C.: September 

19, 2003. 

Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet 21st 

Century Challenges. GAO-03-1168T. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2003. 

Related GAO Products 
Page 24 GAO-05-549T 

School Meal Programs: Few Instances of Foodborne Outbreaks Reported, 

but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Outbreak Data and Food Safety 

Practices. GAO-03-530. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003. 

Agricultural Conservation: Survey Results on USDA’s Implementation of 

Food Security Act Compliance Provisions. GAO-03-492SP. Washington, 

D.C.: April 21, 2003. 

Food-Processing Security: Voluntary Efforts Are Under Way, but Federal 

Agencies Cannot Fully Assess Their Implementation. GAO-03-342. 

Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety 

Rules Needed to Reduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses. GAO-02-902. 

Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002. 

Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain 

Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding Issues. GAO-02-808. Washington, 

D.C.: July 26, 2002. 

Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as 

Adequate, but FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced. GAO-02-566. 

Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2002. 

Food Safety: Continued Vigilance Needed to Ensure Safety of School 

Meals. GAO-02-669T. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other 

Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183. 

Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2002. 

Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be 

Addressed Before Implementation. GAO-02-59. Washington, D.C.: 

December 17, 2001. 

Food Safety and Security: Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure Safe 

Food.GAO-02-47T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001. 

Food Safety: CDC Is Working to Address Limitations in Several of Its 

Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems. GAO-01-973. Washington, D.C.: 

September 7, 2001. 
Page 25 GAO-05-549T 

Food Safety: Overview of Federal and State Expenditures. GAO-01-177. 

Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2001. 

Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect 

Consumers. GAO-01-204. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2001. 

Food Safety: Actions Needed by USDA and FDA to Ensure That 

Companies Promptly Carry Out Recalls. GAO/RCED-00-195. Washington, 

D.C.: August 17, 2000. 

Food Safety: Improvements Needed in Overseeing the Safety of Dietary 

Supplements and “Functional Foods.” GAO/RCED-00-156. Washington, 

D.C.: July 11, 2000. 

School Meal Programs: Few Outbreaks of Foodborne Illness Reported. 

GAO/RCED-00-53. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2000. 

Meat and Poultry: Improved Oversight and Training Will Strengthen New 

Food Safety System. GAO/RCED-00-16. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 

1999. 

Food Safety: Agencies Should Further Test Plans for Responding to 

Deliberate Contamination. GAO/RCED-00-3. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 

1999. 

Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, RiskBased Inspection System. GAO/T-RCED-99-256. Washington, D.C.: August 

4, 1999. 

Food Safety: U.S. Lacks a Consistent Farm-to-Table Approach to Egg 

Safety. GAO/RCED-99-184. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 1999. 

Food Safety: Experiences of Four Countries in Consolidating Their Food 

Safety Systems. GAO/RCED-99-80. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 1999. 

Food Safety: Opportunities to Redirect Federal Resources and Funds Can 

Enhance Effectiveness. GAO/RCED-98-224. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 

1998. 

Food Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure Imported Food Safety Are 

Inconsistent and Unreliable. GAO/T-RCED-98-191. Washington, D.C.: May

14, 1998. 
Page 26 GAO-05-549T 

Food Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods Are 

Inconsistent and Unreliable. GAO/RCED-98-103. Washington, D.C.: April 

30, 1998. 

Food Safety: Agencies’ Handling of a Dioxin Incident Caused Hardships 

for Some Producers and Processors. GAO/RCED-98-104. Washington, D.C.: 

April 10, 1998. 

Food Safety: Fundamental Changes Needed to Improve Food 

Safety. GAO/RCED-97-249R. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 1997. 

Food Safety: Information on Foodborne Illnesses. GAO/RCED-96-96. 

Washington, D.C.: May 8, 1996. 

(360571) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER