U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–165 PDF 2008

REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF IMPORTED 

CONTAMINATED FOOD AND FEED 

INGREDIENTS AND OF RECENT FOOD 

SAFETY EMERGENCIES ON FOOD 

SAFETY AND ANIMAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2007

Serial No. 110–19

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Lampson, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 38

Donnelly, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 39

WITNESSES

Acheson, Dr. David, M.D., F.R.C.P., Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection, United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland ...... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Petersen, Dr. Kenneth E., Food Safety Inspection Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................................................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Safe Food Coalition, Washington, D.C. .................................................................. 63

Wiley, Mr. Ladd, Executive Director, Coalition for a Stronger FDA, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 67

Carter, Ms. Brandy, Executive Director/CEO, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association, 

Manhattan, Kansas .............................................................................................. 69

Mason, Mr. Stephen R., Acting Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 

Rockville, Maryland ............................................................................................. 71

Becker, Mr. Geoffrey S., Specialist in Agricultural Policy, Resources, Science, 

and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C. ... 60

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF IMPORTED CONTAMINATED FOOD AND FEED 

INGREDIENTS AND OF RECENT FOOD SAFETY EMERGENCIES ON FOOD SAFETY AND 

ANIMAL HEALTH SYSTEMS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC

AGRICULTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C. Peterson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Peterson, Holden, Etheridge, 

Boswell, Baca, Scott, Pomeroy, Kagen, Donnelly, Musgrave, 

Neugebauer, Boustany and Goodlatte. 

Staff present: Rob Larew, Chandler Goule, Craig Jagger, Tyler 

Jameson, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, April Slayton, Debbie Smith, 

Kristin Sosanie, Lindsey Correa, John Goldberg, Alise Kowalski, 

Kevin Kramp, Pam Miller, Pete Thomson, and Jamie Weyer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Welcome everybody. Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing of the House 

Agriculture Committee. I will start by acknowledging our witnesses; Dr. Kenneth Petersen, with the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service and Dr. David Acheson with the Food and Drug 

Administration. I want to thank you both for joining us today to 

update the committee about the current situation surrounding melamine tainted products from China that have been used in pet food 

and animal feed. 

Based on what I have heard from USDA and FDA, I am relieved 

that contaminated feed does not pose a risk to the health of poultry, swine and farm fish that ate it, nor do the products from these 

animals pose a threat to the food supply or human health. However, the explanations from USDA and FDA leave me with the uncomfortable feeling that maybe we just got lucky this time. The 

next time tainted food or feed products slip through the very large 

cracks in our import inspection system, we may be forced to confront a much more serious situation in terms of animal or human 

health. 

2

As food and feed imports from countries around the world continue to rise, the rate of inspection of those products entering this 

country has declined. According to recent newspaper reports, in the 

past five years, as food imports have grown by almost 50 percent. 

FDA has lost about 20 percent of its food inspectors. Today, FDA 

is inspecting only 1 percent of the products that enter the U.S. food 

supply that it is responsible for monitoring. This is a recipe for 

major problems down the road and the recalls and quarantines we 

have seen in response to mislabeled melamine tainted products are 

minor compared to what we could see in the future if this problem 

is not addressed. 

There are many questions we need to answer as we move forward. First, I am interested to hear if USDA and FDA feel confident about the existing inspection procedures that are in place 

now. Are those procedures adequate to ensure the safety of imported foods and feed products? If changes need to be made or if 

additional resources are needed to make those changes, I think the 

committee should be aware of that. 

Second, I am interested in the issue of who bears the ultimate 

responsibility for the safety and integrity of imported products. 

Who will ultimately be held responsible for the melamine tainted 

products? According to news reports, it was common knowledge 

amongst Chinese manufacturers that melamine was routinely used 

as an additive to spike protein levels, yet no company or government entity in the U.S. seemed to be aware of it. 

For meat and poultry products, we only accept imports from 

countries with food safety systems that are equivalent to our own, 

giving consumers here a certain level of assurance about the integrity of those goods. With FDA-regulated food and feed products, 

however, we have no such assurance that producers in foreign 

countries are held to any safety standards, whatsoever, much less 

the kind of standards we expect from our domestic producers. 

I hope that the seriousness of the recent risk assessment efforts 

undertaken by multiple government agencies in the wake of the 

melamine incidents are not lost on our trade negotiators. Advocates 

of free trade have done consumers a disservice by failing to address 

the simple fact that expanding trade with countries that fail to enforce food and safety and environmental standards make our domestic food supply less safe. 

I do appreciate the efforts by USDA and FDA to keep the members of this committee and the public informed about the ongoing 

investigation related to contaminated food and feed products. However, moving forward, I am interested to hear not only how the 

agencies that reacted to and investigated the current situation, but 

also what lessons have been learned and what we can do to better 

detect and protect against adulterated, mislabeled and unsafe imports. 

I look forward to hearing more about the current situation today 

and to addressing some of these serious questions about the safety 

of products that we are feeding our pets, our livestock and our families. And I would advise members that their opening statements 

will be made part of the record with the exception of one person, 

that is my good friend and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte 

3

from Virginia. I will recognize him for an opening statement and 

then we will proceed to the witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 

you for calling this hearing. While the committee has been correctly 

focusing its efforts on the Farm Bill, the recent contamination of 

pet and livestock feed warrants our attention and continued oversight. It is important to note however, that the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are still conducting their investigations and there are still many unanswered 

questions. I appreciate the efforts of both departments to keep the 

members of the committee updated with the most recent information and look forward to learning the conclusions of their findings 

once the entire investigation is complete. 

As the representative of a district that is heavily oriented towards animal agriculture, I am always interested in any issue that 

affects livestock feed. And like the rest of my colleagues, I have 

been approached by family and friends who are quite concerned 

about the health and safety of their pets. We all sympathize with 

those who have lost their pets or who have pets that have been adversely affected. As we continue to learn more about this matter, 

we have discovered that in addition to pets, some hogs and poultry 

may have also received contaminated feed. 

As part of the pet food manufacturing process, there is a certain 

amount of excess product or ingredients that are sold into the livestock feed processing sector. As far as we know at this point, no 

one involved in the animal feed business knowingly sold or bought 

contaminated salvage material. Based on what we know so far, the 

livestock feed that had been contaminated was sold and consumed 

before anyone in the United States was aware of the problem. The 

fact and extent of this occurrence suggests that some attention to 

the food safety systems of our trading partners may be warranted. 

I appreciate the actions thus far by the administration to resolve 

this issue, specifically the FDA’s recent decision to take the extraordinary action of detaining all vegetable protein products imported from China. During the course of sampling various vegetable proteins and products made with vegetable proteins, the FDA 

has linked all of the samples testing positive for contamination to 

imports from China. As part of the FDA’s investigation, they will 

identify the actual manufacturer or manufacturers of the contaminated products imported from China. 

While the source of the contamination in China is currently unknown, I hope the FDA’s detention order will send a strong signal 

to the Chinese industry and government that we are serious about 

this issue and will not tolerate violations of our food import standards. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and any light 

that they can shed on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and again want to thank 

our witnesses for being with us today. Your statements will be 

made part of the record in their entirety, so we would appreciate 

it if you could summarize the main points in 5 minutes and welcome to the Committee. Mr. Acheson. 

4

STATEMENT OF DAVID ACHESON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 

FOR FOOD PROTECTION, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. ACHESON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am Dr. David Acheson, Assistant Commissioner for 

Food Protection at FDA. I am joined here today with my colleagues, Dr. Sundloff from Center for Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Solomon from the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Walter Batts from 

our Office of International Programs. 

In my newly created position, Commissioner von Eschenbach has 

asked me to provide advice and counsel on strategic and substantive food safety and food defense matters based on my knowledge and experience in the science of food safety. I will discuss 

FDA’s response to the importation of contaminated animal feed ingredients and the impact of this incident on food safety and animal 

health. But first let me share with you some of the broader complexities and challenges we face in regulating our Nation’s food system. 

At FDA, ensuring that products we regulate are safe and secure 

is a vital part of our public health mission. The agency regulates 

everything Americans eat except for meat, poultry and processed 

egg products, which are covered by USDA. FDA’s responsibility extends to live food animals and animal feed. Through trans-agency 

cooperation and leveraging FDA public health resources, we are 

working to ensure that America’s food supply is among the safest 

in the world. 

However, we face significant challenges in our mission, such as 

the increased globalization of the food supply; changing consumer 

expectations for all foods; changes in farming, manufacturing and 

processing practices; an outdated infrastructure relative to the increasing complexities; the increased concern of a deliberate terrorist attack on the food supply; and challenges in tracking food 

rapidly when a problem does arise. The melamine case we are discussing today illustrates many of these challenges we face and 

highlights the need for new scientific and technological approaches 

to advanced food protection. 

FDA’s investigations into contaminated pet food and farm feed 

began in March 2007 and are an ongoing priority for the agency. 

As we obtain more investigative and scientific information, our assumptions and knowledge about the problem are constantly changing. The investigations have revealed that the underlying cause of 

the contamination was imported pet food ingredients which contained the industrial chemical melamine and melamine analogs. 

FDA has identified the source, the importer, the supplier and 

other parties involved with the distribution of contaminated product declared, at entry, as wheat gluten, but which we now know 

was wheat flour. In mid-April, FDA became aware of a suspicious 

shipment of a product identified in labeling and import records as 

rice protein concentrate that was also used in the manufacture of 

pet foods. Upon inspection, FDA detected the presence of melamine 

and melamine analogs in the imported protein concentrate and the 

finished pet food and began its investigation to track and trace all 

uses of that material. 

5

Some of this contaminated pet food was unknowingly sent as salvage feed to hog producers in several States. Additionally, FDA 

learned that pet food salvage containing contaminated wheat gluten was used in chicken feed on some farms in the States of Indiana, Missouri and Arkansas. During the past eight weeks we have 

aggressively worked to identify the sources and scope of the contamination, trace the distribution of contaminated products 

through the supply chain and assure their removal from store 

shelves. 

FDA’s response has been a team effort in which we have mobilized more than 400 employees to collect pet food and animal feed 

samples, monitor the recall and take consumer complaints; conduct 

numerous inspections of manufacturing facilities and warehouses 

to trace the contaminated product and analyze more than 700 pet 

food and ingredient samples in FDA field labs and our Forensic 

Chemistry Center. Additionally, we have instituted an import alert 

covering all vegetable protein products from China in which all entries are detained and examined. We have dispatched investigatory 

personnel to China and worked closely with agricultural and health 

agencies in all 50 States. 

Finally, we have issued a high priority surveillance assignment 

for our field staff to examine imported plant protein ingredients 

and finished products commonly found in the United States’ food 

and feed supply. These products include wheat gluten, corn gluten, 

corn meal, soy protein, rice bran and rice protein concentrate. At 

this time we have no evidence of harm to humans associated with 

the processed pork or poultry products from animals that consumed 

contaminated feed and we believe the likelihood of human illness 

from eating these products is very low. 

This assessment is based on a number of factors, including dilution of the contaminants in the original protein concentrate as they 

move through the food system and the fact that the pet food is only 

part of the total feed given to the chickens and hogs. The assessment also takes into account that these food products are only a 

small part of the average American diet. The human health risk 

assessment completed with the input of scientists from FDA, CDC, 

USDA, EPA and DHS looks at the potential risk to human health 

from consuming meat from hogs and chickens known to have been 

fed the contaminated animal feed. 

This team is now compiling a scientific assessment of the risk to 

animal health associated with ingestion of animal feed containing 

melamine in its compounds. As an added precaution, we have 

asked CDC to use a surveillance network to monitor for signs of 

human illness that could indicate a contamination of the human 

food supply. To further evaluate any potential harm to humans, 

FDA is developing and implementing additional tests and risk assessments based on the toxicity of melamine compounds and the 

amounts that consumers could be expected to consume. If any evidence surfaces to indicate there was potential harm to humans, appropriate and aggressive action will be taken. 

FDA is examining recent incidents, as well as global food system 

trends to determine what changes are necessary to improve the 

safety of human and animal foods. We are focusing our food protection review in three key areas; prevention, intervention and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
6

sponse; preventing contamination through strong science-based, 

risk-based preventative controls with key partners; improved intervention, using modern technology to establish a comprehensive, integrated food information system to analyze information and detect 

potential product contamination; and rapid response to improve 

product tracking and related lab research capacity. 

We know that the future will require different resources, technology and science to effectively enhance the safety of all human 

and animal foods. We will continue to work closely with our food 

protection partners at each point in the supply chain to establish 

the most protective measures. Mr. Chairman, the animal feed investigation has been a massive effort that will continue until we 

are completely satisfied that the underlying cause has been determined, the scope is identified and full and complete corrective action has been implemented and found to be effective. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important food 

safety issues with you. I will be glad to answer questions that you 

may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I would like to welcome 

Dr. Petersen. Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. PETERSEN, FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Dr. PETERSEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Goodlatte and other members of the committee. I am the Assistant 

Administrator for Field Operations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. We do 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

this ongoing investigation of animal feed supplemented with pet 

food scraps containing melamine and melamine related compounds. 

I also am pleased to be here today with my colleague, Dr. David 

Acheson, from the Food and Drug Administration. 

Before I get to the details, let me begin by emphasizing that 

FSIS takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure the safety 

of meat, poultry and processed eggs products. We do not believe the 

current incident poses a threat to human health and we are not 

aware of any human illnesses that ever have been linked to melamine or melamine related compounds. Our mission at FSIS is to 

ensure that meat, poultry and processed egg products distributed 

in commerce for use as human food are safe, secure, wholesome 

and accurately labeled. 

FSIS is charged with administering and enforcing the Federal 

Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Egg 

Products Inspection Act, portions of the Agricultural Marketing Act 

and regulations that implement these laws. FSIS also ensures compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which requires 

that all livestock be handled and slaughtered in a humane manner. 

The agency is responsible for determining equivalence to Federal 

standards at the State level and among our foreign trading partners. 

Essentially, our agency is charged with ensuring the safety of the 

meat, poultry and processed egg products supply once animals 

leave the farms for the slaughter and processing establishments. 

7

We inspect each animal at slaughter before applying the mark of 

inspection. We also inspect all processing establishments on a daily 

basis to ensure sanitary and other regulatory requirements are 

met. Our inspection personnel form the backbone of FSIS public 

health infrastructure in laboratories, plants and import houses 

throughout the country. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the agency had approximately 7,600 fulltime personnel protecting the public health in 6,000 federally inspected establishments nationwide where FSIS inspection personnel performed antemortem and postmortem inspection and processing inspection procedures to ensure public health requirements 

were met. This included the processing of over 46 billion pounds of 

livestock carcasses, almost 57 billion pounds of poultry carcasses 

and about 4.4 billion pounds of liquid egg products. 

It has been estimated that approximately 60 cents of every food 

dollar in the United States is spent on products that FSIS inspects. 

In addition, during Fiscal Year 2006, approximately 3.9 billion 

pounds of meat and poultry and about 5.9 billion pounds of egg 

products were presented for import inspection at U.S. ports and 

borders. FSIS also has program inspectors nationwide who conduct 

food safety, food defense and outbreak investigators and enforcement. 

FSIS has been working cooperatively with FDA on the investigation into the swine and poultry feed incident involving melamine 

and melamine related compounds. We were first alerted, at the 

field level, on April 17 and at the headquarters level on April 19 

to the possibility that contaminated pet food scraps may have been 

used in animal feed by producers of food animals. Since that initial 

contact, FSIS has been assisting FDA with the investigation, including on-site visits to farms and daily communication with State 

and local officials. 

By April 26, investigative results confirmed that a relatively limited number of hogs had consumed contaminated feed. At that 

time, FSIS joined FDA in alerting the public that this feed had 

been fed to some hogs and assured the public that those hogs 

would not be allowed to enter the food supply until we could conduct the necessary scientific work to make an appropriate safety 

determination. Due to the limited information available, USDA 

could not determine whether it was appropriate to place the mark 

of inspection on foods derived from those animals and so we did not 

do so at that time. 

FSIS worked with States and producers to quarantine or hold 

animals until further notice. We also announced that if identified 

animals needed to be depopulated, producers would be appropriately compensated for any costs. On April 30, USDA and FDA 

announced that the agencies had learned the pet food scraps from 

pet food manufactured with the wheat flour contaminated with 

melamine and melamine compounds had been sold to a limited 

number of farms for use as supplements in chicken feed. As with 

the pork products, we believe that humans were highly unlikely to 

become ill from consuming products from poultry that had consumed this feed. 

Likewise, as in the case of swine, we initiated appropriate controls in coordination with our Federal and State partners at the 

8

farm level. As with the hogs, affected chickens on the affected 

farms were voluntarily held while we further assessed the situation. This past Monday, May 7, FSIS determined that the mark of 

inspection could now be placed on meat and poultry products when 

the animals were from farms where the feed that was fed to those 

animals tested negative for melamine and the melamine compounds. This determination was made after a risk assessment was 

conducted by scientists from FSIS, FDA, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, EPA and the Department of Homeland Security. 

The risk assessment found that consuming meat from hogs and 

chickens known to have been fed the animal feed supplemented 

contaminated pet food scraps, represented a very low risk to 

human health. In the most extreme risk assessment scenario, the 

scientists assumed the unlikely event that all the solid food a person consumed in an entire day was contaminated with melamine. 

Even given that extreme assumption, the potential exposure was 

about 2500 times lower than the dose considered safe, well below 

any level of public health concern. 

As I have already mentioned, FDA and USDA have confirmed 

that scraps of contaminated pet food that contained only low levels 

of melamine were distributed to farms in a limited number of 

States and added to the swine and poultry feed. These scraps constituted a small percentage of the farm animal rations. In addition, 

melamine is known to be rapidly excreted in the urine of the animal. When exposure levels are much higher, as was the case with 

cats and dogs, the melamine and its compounds appeared to cause 

the formation of crystals resulting in kidney damage. There is no 

such indication of kidney damage in hogs. 

Both hogs and chickens known to have consumed the contaminated feed appear to be healthy. The assessment that the risk to 

human health is very low is based on several factors, including the 

dilution of contaminated feed from the original concentrate as it 

moved through the food system. First, it was a small component of 

the pet food. Second, that pet food was a small component of any 

of the feed given to hogs and poultry. Third, it is not known to accumulate in the body of animals and even if it was present in pork 

or chicken. Fourth, pork and poultry make a relatively small portion of a balanced American diet. 

Neither FDA nor FSIS has uncovered any evidence of harm to 

swine or poultry that were fed the contaminated feed. This dilution 

factor was an important piece of data considered in the multi-agency science-based risk assessment and helped support the conclusion 

of a very low risk to human health from eating the animals. 

As the investigation proceeded, we now know that in several 

cases, on-farm feed samples tested negative for melamine and melamine related compounds. Those tests were conducted in Federal 

and State laboratories. 

USDA has concluded, based on the human health risk assessment and the inability to detect melamine in the feed sample, that 

those animals, where there is a negative feed test, no longer need 

to be quarantined or withheld from processing. In other cases, feed 

samples have tested positive or we simply do not have a feed sample available. Those animals continue to be withheld from procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
9

essing but are not yet being culled, pending the results of an animal exposure risk assessment. That new information is expected 

shortly, likely this week. 

USDA and FDA continue to work together in conducting a full 

and comprehensive investigation. As additional information is confirmed, updates will be provided and decisions will be made using 

the best available science with the singular goal of protecting the 

public health. We will also make the risk assessment available for 

public comment. The scientists that worked on the risk assessment 

are compiling scientific assessment of the risks to animals associated with the ingestion of this potentially contaminated feed. 

We do recognize how important it is to communicate with all of 

our stakeholders, our partners and the general public in an open 

and transparent manner. Throughout the ongoing investigation 

with FDA, we have been sharing information with State Departments of Agriculture and State veterinarians. We continue to keep 

trading partners informed through the Foreign Agriculture Service. 

We have been updating our stakeholders from industry and consumer organizations. We have been working with FDA to keep the 

general public informed. We will continue to reach out to our stakeholders, our partners and the general public to keep them informed 

as the investigation continues. We will continue to keep Congress 

informed of our ongoing investigation, as well. 

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to make these comments and we look forward to any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and thank both of the 

witnesses for their testimony. Now we will have a round of questions that I will start off. I think you folks have done a pretty good 

job since you discovered the situation, but if these pets not been 

affected, you wouldn’t have even known about this contamination. 

We also saw this with the spinach situation, where until people got 

sick, we didn’t know about it. So Mr. Acheson, you have been put 

in a new position, is that correct? 

Dr. ACHESON. That is correct, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what are you, Assistant——

Dr. ACHESON. Assistant Commissioner of Food Protection at 

FDA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And in your testimony, I don’t believe you 

asked for any more inspectors or resources, am I right? 

Dr. ACHESON. With regard to resources, part of my mission is to 

develop a strategic plan around food safety and food defense and 

a piece of that is going to be looking at what further resources we 

will need to get the job done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would hope so, because I hope the response is not to create another level of bureaucracy, which is what 

we seem to do in government a lot of the time, instead of focusing 

on putting more people on the ground. So that leads me to my 

main question for Mr. Acheson. The imports that you folks regulate 

have gone up 213 percent from 1996 through 2005. We used to inspect 1.7 percent of those shipments, in 2005, it was 1.27 percent 

and now it is down to 1 percent. 

There has been some increase in field employees, a 41 percent increase, but we can’t even find out how many of them are involved 

in inspecting imported food. In 1995, we know there were 595 peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
10

ple and we can’t find out how many there are now. But even if you 

took all of the new employees and put them into inspecting imported food, you still wouldn’t even come close to keeping up with 

the increase in imports that has happened here. 

We have a similar situation in FSIS, although it is not quite as 

pronounced and, at least in the case of FSIS, I think they have 

changed the way they operate in terms of using methods that may 

require fewer employees. How do you respond to that lack of additional resources and people to deal with this big increase in imports that we have seen? 

Dr. ACHESON. I think you asked a lot of questions in there and 

let me try to sort of phrase it around part of it, which is directed 

as 1 percent of imports are being inspected and is that enough? 

What the agency has done is to use a risk-based approach to focus 

inspections based on where the risk lies. We would never have the 

resources to be able to inspect and test 100 percent of imported 

food. 

So it is clearly important that we use a risk-based strategy and 

that is what we have done. Over the years, we have moved away 

from testing foods that are considered to be lower risk and focused 

on areas that are higher risk. Food defense is a classic example of 

that, where through the Prior Notice Center, we have set up a system which is specifically designed to identify and target foods that 

are considered to be of higher risk. 

As I develop this strategic plan with my colleagues at FDA, one 

of the things that we need to do, quite clearly, apart from building 

the scientific infrastructure for the agency, is to develop a sound, 

risk-based strategy that is going to focus both on imports and domestic foods to ensure their safety and security. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how would you do that in China? I mean, are 

you going to go over there and inspect plants like we do with 

USDA, is that what you are considering? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, again, it is not resource feasible, with the 

best will in the world, to get an FDA inspector in every manufacturing facility in every part of the world. We have approximately 

150,000 manufacturers registered as part of our registration database throughout the world. That is aside from the domestic, that 

is just foreign. So what we clearly need to do is to strategize on 

how to ensure that what the industry is doing and what the countries are doing is maintaining a level of food safety and security 

standard that is acceptable to the United States. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just one last thing. I had a gentleman in my office who claims that he has got some kind of system where they 

can test the molecules and this would have identified the spinach 

problem. Are you familiar with this technology where they claim 

that they can actually find this stuff immediately? Do you know 

anything about that? 

Dr. ACHESON. You are referring to melamine or are you referring 

to——

The CHAIRMAN. This is any kind of substance. This gentleman 

claimed that this would be a big help to us in trying to identify 

these problems and apparently he must be having some problem 

getting people to look at it but——Are you aware of anything available in the technology area that would help us with this? 

11

Dr. ACHESON. One of the reasons that we need and try to maintain a sound scientific research infrastructure is to get at exactly 

that. Our scientists and researchers need to stay ahead of the 

curve on the modern technology. They need to understand what is 

up and coming through attending scientific meetings, interacting 

with scientists around the world. We are very open to new detection methodologies and in principle, you are exactly right, if we 

could develop a detection method that was rapid, sensitive, specific 

and could be operated at a simple level by an inspector in a field 

situation, that is heading towards the perfect type of methodology. 

But it has got to be validated. It has got to be shown to work, so 

that is all part of building and ensuring that this scientific infrastructure—because what you are talking about there is the basic 

science components which are the underpinnings for sound detection and then response. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you and we will be very much interested in monitoring and being informed about your progress and 

hopefully, we will get something going here sooner rather than 

later, so thank you very much. 

Dr. ACHESON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Dr. Petersen, the USDA has made the decision 

not to recall the meat and poultry products from hogs and chickens 

that have been fed this questionable feed, but that has already entered commerce and I have listened to your statement regarding 

your analysis of that and your conclusion that it is safe. What level 

of assurance would you give the American consumer that these 

products are safe? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Thank you for the question. First of all, we made 

that decision after carefully considering the facts and we do consider the food supply to be safe. The facts we looked at, and I think 

it is important to understand them, are that on the first day, when 

we made the announcement that we were aware that some of the 

contaminated feed had gone to several swine producers, that is 

about all we knew, that there was some exposure to swine and so 

we took a very cautious approach on that day, which was April 26. 

With that limited set of facts and we took the cautious approach 

of not applying the mark of inspection to any of those animals, 

should they have come to slaughter. 

On that day, we were not certain that any of the animals had 

already gone into commerce. It was over the course of the next two 

days, over the course of that weekend, April 28, where we did become aware that there were swine that had gone to the marketplace. And during that intervening two days, we did get some additional facts and they were facts such as the melamine is a very 

small component of the pet food and the pet food is a very 

small——

Mr. GOODLATTE. I don’t want you to—I heard your testimony and 

I understand the analysis. What is your level of confidence that the 

decision not to recall the products assures the public of the safety 

of the products? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Well, we are quite confident now——

12

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is it a high level of assurance or is it a low level 

of assurance? Is it, I think it is safe? What is your level of assurance? 

Dr. PETERSEN. It is a high level of assurance, particularly in light 

of the human risk assessment that was completed the other day. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Great, great. Thank you. Now, my next question 

relates to what I think is the wider public concern which is, if this 

got into our food system from China, then the Chinese are not 

doing a very good job with their own food safety. And so I want 

to know what message the administration is sending to the Chinese government that exporting contaminated products of any kind 

to the United States will not be tolerated? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Well, I will start and no doubt my colleague from 

FDA may want to mention their approach. Our message would be 

we are taking this extremely seriously and as we uncover the facts, 

the facts will lead where they lead. But the mere fact that this occurred and we are in this position of responding, shows we take 

this quite seriously and we are dealing with it through our equivalency system, which is a very rigorous approach before any country 

gets even approved to have the possibility of exporting any products to the U.S. China does not export meat or poultry products to 

the U.S. at this time. So that is our message as far as the approach 

with engagement on China on this particular issue. I would defer 

to my colleague. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, let me ask Dr. Acheson about that. You 

have put a halt to all vegetable proteins being imported from 

China, is that correct? What are the terms and conditions of that 

halt? Is it contingent upon their making certain changes or is that 

subject to future negotiation? What is the status of that? 

Dr. ACHESON. Thanks for the question. The status is that, as you 

point out, all vegetable-based protein concentrates imported from 

China are not allowed to enter the United States until we, at FDA, 

have evidence that it is safe to proceed. That evidence can be varied. It can be validated testing undertaken by the industry. It can 

be a number of factors. That will continue and we will continue to 

do that until we have assurance from a particular importer working with the Chinese authorities, AQSIQ, to ensure that the products that are being imported into the United States are, indeed, 

safe. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But at this stage in the investigation, do you 

have confidence that the Chinese government’s food safety system 

is sufficient to assure U.S. consumers that Chinese products are 

safe for export? 

Dr. ACHESON. At this point, that is part of what we are trying 

to seek. We are working very closely with AQSIQ on this. With regard specifically to the melamine, the Chinese authorities have 

made changes since this has occurred, with regard to making sure 

that all imports or exports from China to the United States and 

other parts of the world, I believe, go through AQSIQ to ensure 

that safety. Our team is over in China right now, working very 

closely with AQSIQ. The job is not done. We need to continue to 

work with AQSIQ and the Chinese authorities to further ensure 

the safety of imported food from China. 

13

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. The chairman has given me leave 

to ask you another question to follow up on that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture established equivalency agreements with nations that export meat and poultry products to the United States 

to ensure that the exporting country is meeting our food safety 

standards. Does the FDA have the capability of using a similar approach? 

Dr. ACHESON. In theory, yes. FDA does have the capability of 

using equivalence, in theory. But I would like to point out that for 

FDA, the situation is significantly more complex than for USDA. 

We are having to deal with multiple products. It is not just meat, 

poultry and egg products. There is a huge spectrum of products 

that are under the control of a vast array of agencies, very often 

in different countries. I think, as we go down this road, an equivalence-type thinking or an equivalence-type approach is one aspect 

of what could be in the toolbox that we can use to ensure that imported goods, not just from China but from all parts of the world, 

are safe and secure. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Acheson, I realize 

you have limited resources, but I have a few questions about dairy 

imports and particularly on India. I understand that the imports 

from India are averaging about $47 million over the last 3 years 

and their level of pesticide approval is much higher than that of 

the U.S. I am just wondering what specific steps are you taking to 

monitor imports from India? It has come to my attention that the 

domestic dairy industry brought this to FDA’s attention, but there 

has not even been any sampling that has been done so far. 

Dr. ACHESON. There is an ongoing pesticide testing program in 

FDA. It is part of the total diet study and part of a separate assignment that we have, looking for pesticides. Frequently, when we 

find them, we issue import alerts and we have a number in place 

right now related to pesticides. I don’t have specific facts on numbers of tests of pesticides related to imports of dairy products from 

India at my fingertips today. I would be happy to get those for the 

record. 

Mr. HOLDEN. If you get them, Doctor, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. ACHESON. Sure. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Okay. And second, Doctor, I understand that the 

FDA is trying to accelerate Grade A importation of dairy products 

through third party verification, is that true? 

Dr. ACHESON. With regard to dairy products, I know that FDA 

is working closely with a number of other countries to try to ensure 

that there is importation of safe and secure dairy products into the 

United States. Again, if you want specifics on the current status of 

that discussion, I would be happy to provide that for the record. 

Mr. HOLDEN. I would appreciate that, Doctor, and again, I realize 

that you have limited resources and you are looking for ways to 

crunch the dollars, but I would be concerned about the integrity of 

third party inspections and so if you could get that information to 

me, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. ACHESON. Thank you. I understand. 

14

Mr. HOLDEN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the 

chairman in that we don’t need to create any new bureaucracy 

here. We need to make sure that we have food safety in our country. I think one of the things I want to follow up on is that other 

countries have been very punitive on the U.S. when there has been 

a question about the quality and the health safety of our products. 

For example, Japan with American beef. Are we taking a hard line 

with China for example, right now to make sure that they understand that if we can’t satisfy ourselves that we are getting safe food 

products from them, then that could have some long-term ramifications? 

Dr. ACHESON. Is that question directed to me? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Both of you. 

Dr. ACHESON. Okay. Well, let me start out. First of all, I want 

to say that our focus is not solely on China with regard to imported 

foods. We cannot ignore the rest of the world. But right now, that 

is the current focus, on China. But whatever strategies we put in 

place have to be applicable globally and, as I said in my statement, 

we have got an increasingly global food supply and I suspect it is 

only going to get more global and diverse as time continues. 

We do already have systems in place so that when situations, or 

problems, are identified, we can put import alerts out there which 

essentially stop something from coming into the country. That can 

be done in a very focused way and the melamine situation is an 

example of that. We started that, as an import alert, on the two 

companies from China that we knew for sure were problematic. As 

we learned more about this situation as it unfolded, we expanded 

that to include all vegetable protein concentrates. In theory, I believe, we could keep expanding it based on what we find, so we can, 

basically, put things in place that will stop the problem. 

But I think the key question is how do you get one step further 

back? How do you deal with the preventative strategies in the 

country itself? Because the overall approach needs to be prevention 

Number 1, which needs to involve all stakeholders. It needs to involve industry participation, understanding suppliers. Where do 

you get your material from? What do you know about your supplier? And that is something we have worked with the industry on 

very closely with regard to food defense, raising awareness about 

your supplier through our alert program. 

Then the other piece is how do you apply that, locally, into a 

country going globally? And that is part of the strategy that has 

to be figured out. And clearly, we need to make some changes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I appreciate that. Mr. Petersen, as you know, 

we were put through a fairly rigorous process by the Japanese on 

our monitoring process so that they could rely it when we said U.S. 

beef was safe and that we have safety measures in place. I agree 

with you. It is the preventative side. We don’t need to wait until 

animals start dying or God forbid, people start dying or having 

health issues to determine how we need to monitor that. So what 

are we doing, then, on a proactive basis, of putting a lot of pressure 

on these various countries of saying that they are going to have to 

15

demonstrate to us that they have a process in place that we can 

rely on to ensure the product is safe when they allow that product 

out of their country and it is coming into our country? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, again, to take the micro example of melamine, we have that in place through the import alert. We will not 

allow importation or take people off that import alert until we have 

assurances from the country that product is safe. And again, it is 

broader than that. I think, possibly, one way to take that question 

is, which will be part of my analysis, strategically as we move forward, is do we need new authorities? Do we need to tweak current 

authorities to make sure that we meet that goal of prevention and 

ensuring prevention and pushing it back onto the countries who 

want to import food into the United States and the industries that 

want to do that. Because there is no way in the world we would 

ever get an FDA inspector in every manufacturing facility throughout the world. We just couldn’t do it. And I don’t think we should. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Does that also include some kind of 

verification of types of chemicals that are being used on agricultural products in those countries? Because one of the things I hear 

from fruit and vegetable people is that some of the vegetables and 

fruit that may be coming into our country, in fact, have chemicals 

being used in those countries that are prohibited in the U.S.? 

Dr. ACHESON. It happens and that is why we have monitoring 

systems in place, to try to pick that up. The worse case is when 

you get human illness. That is the point at which you have got to 

respond, or animal illness. And then you backtrack and you figure 

out okay, we have got a problem. Our goal is to never get to that 

point and as I said, push it back on prevention; make sure that 

there is something in place that would prevent a product coming 

in which has been exposed to a pesticide which we don’t consider 

safe. Then on top of that, there has got to be an intervention, 

inspectional testing, detection level to basically trust and verify in 

terms of the prevention. But there has got to be enough teeth in 

this to make sure that the rest of the world will pay attention to 

our standards. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. After you have had a chance to analyze that, 

do you anticipate bringing something to this committee? If you 

need additional authority, do you think that is going to be necessary that legislatively? Do we need to look at some ways to give 

your agency broader powers to be able to interact in that way? 

Dr. ACHESON. I would be happy to come back and report to you 

once we have made that assessment. Part of where we are trying 

to go strategically is to look at exactly those questions. And I want 

to phrase that in two ways; one is tweaking current authorities and 

the other is seeking new authorities. Frankly, we are not there yet, 

in terms of what that would look like, but I would be happy to report back to this committee once we have reached that point. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is important. Gentlemen, let me quickly 

go to some questions. My first is for both of you. Frankly, this entire incident is troubling. I think this will remind people of the imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
16

portance of our nation not being totally reliant on foreign sources 

of food. We have said many times that our food supply here in the 

United States is the safest and most abundant in the world and I 

hope this incident will sound something of a clear call for more diligent food inspection, as well as better lines of communication when 

an incident occurs. 

I believe the lag time between when these animals first started 

dying and the official disclosure of tainted feed going to the farm, 

was entirely too long. My understanding is that we first knew 

about it in February. It took a month for anyone to acknowledge 

it. So my question is this, wheat gluten and some of the other products that have been put on hold and the test lists such as ryes and 

corn gluten go into far more products than pet food. Can either of 

you tell me within a degree of certainty that this product has not 

entered into the human food supply chain? 

Dr. ACHESON. Let me first respond to that. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Yes or no? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes, I can give you assurance that the wheat gluten and the rice protein concentrate that we now know was wheat 

flour that was used to make the contaminated pet food, has not, 

to date, to our awareness, entered the food supply chain. I want to 

also emphasize, though, that this is an ongoing investigation and 

I cannot predict where it is going to go. That is part of what we 

need to do, is to continue to trace out the tentacles. And I also 

want to point out, in that context, that we——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I have a very limited amount of time and you 

have answered that one, so I don’t want to take all my time filibustering. 

Dr. PETERSEN. FDA, would of course, have the lead on how the 

contamination is moving on the wheat protein side of the spectrum. 

Everything we have seen as far as their investigation supports the 

statement that was just made. There is no direct information that 

we have seen that supports that it went into the human chain directly. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. All right. Thank you. USDA and FDA have both 

issued press releases that state that the risk to human health is 

very low. What does very low mean? And the reason I ask this 

question, I have a grandson who is two and a half years old and 

weighs about 27 pounds. How does that compare, that child, to say, 

a grown adult weighing 200 pounds? How does that compare? 

When you say very low, I think the American people want to know 

what does very low really mean? 

Dr. ACHESON. Based on the risk assessment, one of the things 

that we look for is what is the margin of safety, as it is called, between the level that we see in the food and the level which we 

might expect anybody, infant or whatever, on a per kilogram basis, 

of body weight, to have a problem. And that risk assessment, worse 

case indicated that there was about a 2500-fold margin of safety 

between the level that we were seeing in the meat and the likelihood of an illness. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do you agree? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Yes, we worked jointly on the risk assessment and 

that was using the most extreme assumptions that could theoretiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
17

cally happen, but are not expected to happen in the real world. A 

2500-fold margin of safety is rather large. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. See, the reason I ask this, it is troubling because 

if you go back to the question the Chairman asked earlier, at the 

percentage of increase of feedstock coming into this country since 

1996, with the reduction in the amount of inspections in that period of time, this is the first time it has shown up and it didn’t 

show up until we had a death that we recognized in animals. I 

think I am understanding you now. 

We really don’t know what else is out there and yet, we have increased the amount of imports substantially with a reduction in the 

amount of inspections. So my next question is this, is it true that 

Menu Foods, the first company to notify USDA that there was a 

problem, first discovered the problem at the end of February? And 

why was the first hold on these imported products put in place, it 

took a month to take the action to put it in place, to put a hold 

on the imports? 

Dr. ACHESON. The hold on the import was, as I said earlier, expanded from the companies that we first identified and once we 

had identified who the company was, what the problem was, the 

hold was put in place and that has expanded now. Part of what you 

are getting at is the need for, in terms of response, is what do we 

need within the system to be able to get a handle on an illness, 

whether it be human or animal, earlier? And that is public health 

infrastructure, to get to where we can take action faster. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I hope you will share back with us that need. 

My final question, with the Chairman’s indulgence, I have a stack 

of material I have been reading and obviously, a lot of it is from 

newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with the 

latest one out this morning about the number of the pigs that are 

dying in southeast China by the thousands, outside Hong Kong. 

And they started dying the first of the year. Have you had any 

input on that, any response with USDA or FDA? Because the question is that it is about the same time the tainted food started showing up. 

Dr. PETERSEN. We don’t have any direct information on that, but 

another agency within USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, remains vigilant on any animal diseases that could 

come into this country and so even if we were to receive product 

from that part of the world, which I am not aware that we do, their 

animal protection measures would immediately come into play with 

their is animal disease surveillance networks. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. The reason I follow that up is because it is from 

the region of China where SARS was, which refused to issue information then. Now we have got the same problem and I would hope 

you would follow that up and I would appreciate a response back 

to the committee on that. 

Dr. PETERSEN. For equivalency with meat and poultry, if we have 

a country that is equivalent, if an issue arises where there is some 

animal disease that occurs, we can suspend any exports until that 

issue is mitigated and we have done so in the past. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Are you telling me we have no equivalency with 

China? 

18

Dr. PETERSEN. On China for equivalency on the meat and poultry 

side, it is strictly related to cooked product and they are not bringing any into this country at this time. It must be cooked, because 

that was the determination made by the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, that it needed to be cooked before it came in, 

so they are eligible, but nothing is coming in. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay. I would like to follow it up later, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your thoughtful testimony. First question, given that 

the investigation is still ongoing, are the Chinese cooperating? 

Dr. ACHESON. Very much so, yes. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So you are satisfied with the level of cooperation? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes, AQSIQ has been very helpful. As you are 

probably aware, when our investigators first went over there, there 

was a holiday in China. They basically came in from their vacations to support us and assist us in the investigation. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Dr. Acheson. I appreciate your strategic approach to this, because obviously, it would be very impracticable and costly to provide inspectors across the board for 100 percent inspection, so the strategic approach that you outlined was 

good. I am curious to know whether or not there is a very vigorous, 

broad interagency process involved in this strategic planning. In 

other words, beyond the two agencies represented here today, is 

the State Department, our intelligence community involved in this? 

Department of Defense, perhaps? Commerce, Treasury, involved in 

looking at formulating a very strong and vigorous strategic approach to this problem? There are many, many ramifications, obviously, but if you could give me a straightforward answer on that, 

I would appreciate it. 

Dr. ACHESON. At this stage, no. It is early days, but clearly, this 

goes beyond just FDA and it involves many of the agencies that 

you have just outlined and there is going to be a need to interact 

with them, share the information with them, share the approach 

with them, get their support and get their help to put it in place. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I would submit that if you need a push from Congress, I would certainly be willing to work with you on that issue. 

I think, clearly, it is going to require a vigorous and broad interagency approach to deal with this problem, because you outlined 

the challenges very succinctly with globalization, terrorism, the rapidity of change in production and so forth, and to deal with those 

kinds of challenges, I think clearly a broad approach is going to be 

necessary. One final question, what has been the budgetary impact 

of this particular investigation? And could both of you comment on 

ongoing budgetary needs as we look forward to dealing with these 

kinds of problems and particularly, with regard to enhancing your 

research capabilities? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, as I have said, there is a need to ensure the 

infrastructure is there. There needs to be a strong science base behind the decisions. We use science on a daily basis. The risk assessment is a classic example of that, which to get to your earlier question, involved multiple agencies. We brought all of those folk in 

19

there and in fact, every day we have a call at 9:30 that involves 

many of the players that you asked me about. 

In terms of resources, though, specifically, we have got to determine what we need to get that job done in terms of the infrastructure. It is not just research and science, it needs information technology infrastructure, as well. A lot of what we have got to do is 

data handling, data analysis, vast amounts of information. If we 

are going to make this work, we have got to use modern IT to drive 

it, as opposed to old-fashioned piles of paper and pencils. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And I trust you will come back to us with a more 

detailed assessment of what those needs will be as time goes forward. But what has been the budgetary impact to your respective 

agencies with regard to this particular investigation? Could you 

comment on that? Could either of you comment? 

Dr. PETERSEN. For FSIS, we are appropriated to do a certain 

number of investigations of some nature because we know various 

investigatory needs are going to come up during the year. Approximately to date, and we have been involved for the last several 

weeks now, about a thousand man hours have been employed with 

the associated travel costs, so that is well within our system and 

so at this point, we are able to deal with the situation. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. I see that my time is about up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Iowa, 

Mr. Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to kind of 

pick up on what Mr. Holden was talking about on the dairy situation, Dr. Acheson. I appreciate what you have said, so I will try not 

to repeat that, but do I understand that you are trying to accelerate the dairy products from several countries by giving testing 

and verification to third parties? Is that correct? 

Dr. ACHESON. I am not intimately familiar with the current status of those interactions with regard to dairy products. I didn’t 

come to this hearing prepared to address that in depth. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I understand, but it does kind of fit into what we 

are discussing here, so would you give us that information? 

Dr. ACHESON. I would be happy to and I apologize that I don’t 

have it today. 

Mr. BOSWELL. No, that is okay. We would like to know. And I 

am not sure, if I could, how do you plan to ensure a third party 

in a country with corruption problems can meet all the guidelines? 

And I say that because, to use the example that Mr. Holden did, 

the Indian standards for levels of pesticide are higher than the 

U.S. and I would like, as you report back to us, if you would, that 

you give us an indication of what kind of a sampling you have done 

over the last six months, to give us a feel for just what is actually 

going on there, understanding that you didn’t come prepared for 

that today, but would you give that information to us? 

Dr. ACHESON. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. Well, I think that would add on to what Mr. 

Holden has already requested, say I appreciate it, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Let us see here. The 

gentlelady from Colorado. 

20

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here 

earlier and I will pass on the questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Scott. You are on the list. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what this 

hearing points out, and this issue with China points out, is that 

our food safety protection operation is dangerously inadequate. I 

think there should be a greater sense of urgency than what I am 

hearing from you gentlemen today. There was a motion picture 

that came out a while back and it was called, Outbreak. I think 

that was the name of it. Dustin Hoffman was in this movie. And 

it had to do with this monkey who came into this country and 

caused an outbreak. 

My concern is two-fold. Here we have got China, that you seem 

to think has it under control now. But this isn’t the first time. 

China is notorious for contaminated food products. We have had all 

kinds of history, news reports, on its honey, for example; on its catfish, for example. So it is repeat after repeat. My fundamental 

question to you, first of all, is can China be trusted to deal with 

this problem or in fact, do you and FDA need new authority to deal 

with it? 

Dr. ACHESON. First of all, to answer your specific question, I 

think we have to approach this in the context of trust and 

verifying. We have got to set up systems where we have to push 

back on manufacturers, importers, wherever they be, to put sound, 

safe systems in place to ensure the safety, yet we have to verify 

and inspect to make sure that they meet that standard. With regard to your comment of urgency, I can assure you, there is a great 

deal of urgency about this. One of the reasons that my position was 

created, just a week ago, was a reflection in FDA of that urgency 

and the need to take a new, strategic approach to determine what 

needs to be done to further protect the American food supply. 

Mr. SCOTT. Here is what concerned me, and why I say I don’t 

think you are urgent enough. In your reference to a question from 

one of my previous colleagues who asked you has this outbreak 

from the pet food gotten into our food supplies, threatening our 

food supply. You said no, when in fact, according to reports, the 

contaminant has made it into our human food supply when scraps 

from pet food production were fed to hogs and chickens in the 

United States. Now, Mr. Acheson, those hogs and chickens are 

going to make it onto somebody’s table and whether or not we 

know exactly where those hogs are and which those hogs are. 

Dr. ACHESON. Let me clarify that statement so that you understand where I was coming from with that. My answer to that statement and perhaps it was my misunderstanding of the question, 

was whether the wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate had 

been used directly as an ingredient in a human food and to date, 

we have found no hard evidence to support that. You are absolutely 

correct, and we have said in many press releases, that it has gone, 

via the pet food, into the animal feed, there is no question about 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Do you feel our food supply is safe? 

Dr. ACHESON. I feel that our food supply is one of the safest in 

the world. My mission is to make it safer and more secure. 

21

Mr. SCOTT. Right now we are getting about 14 percent of our food 

that we consume in this country from other countries and I think 

you alluded to the fact that percentage is going to increase in the 

future. Do you see a threat there? Do you see a need for us to do 

one of two things, either begin to put up other safety and soundness measures to protect us or do you see a greater need for us to 

become more independent and less dependent on foreign sources 

for our food and begin to put more things in place to produce more 

of our own foodstuff in this country? For example, what I am saying, about 90 percent of the tomatoes, for example, are brought in 

to this country. That is a huge percentage. 

Dr. ACHESON. Part of the complexities of this is the consumer demand for all kinds of food 24/7, 365 days a year, which puts a lot 

of pressure on American agriculture to provide that and that is a 

big part of what is driving the importation of food. It is consumer 

demand for readily available, lots of types, inexpensive, year round. 

That is a fact and short of changing consumer behavior, that isn’t 

going to change. So we have got to accept that as the fact. Now, 

clearly your point as to whether we could grow more domestically, 

that is a separate issue and I am certainly not opposed to that in 

any way, shape or form. We have to accept the fact that we have 

got this global food supply and what are we going to do to protect 

the American consumer from not just imported foods, but clearly, 

within the last few months, we have had concerns with domestically grown fresh produce, as well as peanut butter, amongst other 

things. So this approach shouldn’t just focus on imports, it needs 

to encompass both. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much for your answers. I appreciate 

it very much. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, 

then, when the pets started dying, the investigation was triggered 

and the two agencies working together and as you indicated in 

your testimony, did some very good work to retrace back the problems causing the illnesses in the pets consuming this tainted pet 

food. But it was the illnesses and the deaths of these animals that 

caused the investigation to begin, is that correct? 

Dr. ACHESON. That is correct. 

Mr. POMEROY. Now, obviously we are talking about matters related to the Nation’s food supply; that is a little late. We want 

something a little more proactive than when the pets start dying. 

So let us talk about that one. I saw some film footage on television, 

it was a big old factory where they were putting melamine in as 

a substitute for wheat gluten because it was cheaper, has no nutritional value and indeed, has very adverse health consequences to 

these animals. Were you surprised at the commercial scale by 

which this product was being put into this commercial pet food as 

basically a cost savings technique, yet resulting in tainted food? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, clearly FDA was not aware that this was 

going on, otherwise we would have been more preventive and 

proactive. 

22

Mr. POMEROY. Do you have a capacity, people on the ground over 

there running around looking at these places where the food is 

manufactured? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, as I said, we currently do not have the resources and the manpower to get an FDA inspector——

Mr. POMEROY. How about the U.S. Department of Agriculture? 

Dr. PETERSEN. The pet food issue is not directly under our jurisdiction, so it is when those animals come to slaughter that FSIS 

becomes directly involved. 

Mr. POMEROY. Now, that is a good point because probably this 

technique of adulterating food supply fed to animals, also available 

to domestic livestock and such in China. Do we have food imported 

from China? 

Dr. PETERSEN. We have food imported, but at this point, there 

is no meat or poultry that is imported, although China is eligible 

to export cooked poultry, provided the poultry comes from a country eligible to export raw poultry to the U.S. 

Mr. POMEROY. How about fish? 

Dr. ACHESON. FDA regulates fish and the answer is yes. 

Mr. POMEROY. I understand, a couple of States, Alabama and 

Mississippi, have actually taken steps to stop the import of Chinese 

catfish in light of concerns that these fish may have been fed tainted food supply over in China. 

Dr. ACHESON. That is correct. We have had concerns about catfish particularly being contaminated with antibiotics and other fish 

products contaminated with a fungicide, malachite green. We at 

FDA have been working with those states to implement a testing 

program. 

Mr. POMEROY. Are there Chinese catfish coming into other 

states? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes, I am sure there are. 

Mr. POMEROY. Well, who is right in that one? Are Alabama and 

Mississippi right or are the other states lax? Should there be a national response? 

Dr. ACHESON. What we have done is put an import alert out for 

eel in relation to malachite green. 

Mr. POMEROY. If there is an evolving state of play relative to regulations and some states have one thing, some states have done 

nothing; FDA is looking at it, thinking about it. Do you think it 

would be helpful to have a label so at least consumers would know 

what is U.S. catfish, what is China catfish? 

Dr. ACHESON. I would ask my colleague, Steve Solomon, to answer your question. 

Mr. POMEROY. Why can’t you answer it? 

Dr. ACHESON. That is why I brought some other experts from our 

Office of Regulatory Affairs along, because I think your question is 

what is the current regulation. 

Mr. POMEROY. My question is what do you think about consumers having notice of where their food comes from? What do you 

think about that? 

Dr. ACHESON. Personally, I think the more information the consumer has to make informed choices, the better. 

Mr. POMEROY. I think so, too. What does U.S. Department of Agriculture think about that? 

23

Dr. PETERSEN. Well, of course, we regulate the labeling of meat 

and poultry and eggs products and our view is that the current labeling system is sufficient to inform the consumer. 

Mr. POMEROY. Now, does the current labeling system, sir, allow 

a person to find out what country their food comes from, where the 

steak comes from? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Well, what it does have——

Mr. POMEROY. No, wait a minute. I have got about 30 seconds 

left. I would like you to answer my question. Does the current system you think so highly of, allow a consumer looking at a grocery 

store shelf, to find out where their food comes from? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Well, for meat and poultry products, what it will 

show is for domestically slaughtered animals it will have the USDA 

mark of inspection on it, which means that we inspected it before 

it went into commerce and we think that is sufficient for those 

products. 

Mr. POMEROY. Is this a little code? Is this a little code that consumers got to know? There is a little label that says USDA Inspected and that means ah, that was an Iowa steak, not a Chinese 

steak, or they don’t come in from China so it’s not a Canadian 

steak. Is that it? 

Dr. PETERSEN. It means that their Federal tax dollars inspected 

that product and found it to be safe and wholesome. 

Mr. POMEROY. Where does it say, sir, this is a U.S. product, not 

a foreign product? Where does it say that? 

Dr. PETERSEN. It would say, on a little inspection label, U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected and passed for meat and poultry 

products. 

Mr. POMEROY. And so you have got to look for that U.S. inspected sticker and then understand, as a consumer, that Canadian 

steaks don’t have that sticker on there, is that right? 

Dr. PETERSEN. Yes, and it is required——

Mr. POMEROY. Wouldn’t it just be a whole lot clearer to say Canadian steak, U.S. steak, wherever steak? What is the matter with 

that? 

Dr. PETERSEN. That is the system we have. We think it informs 

the public. It has been out there for a hundred years and it is 

available for them to view. 

Mr. POMEROY. Well, I buy steaks. I don’t even know what sticker 

you are talking about. I can’t tell if they are U.S., I can’t tell if they 

are Canadian, I can’t tell where they are from. I think we can do 

a heck of a lot better than what we have got now. In fact, I believe 

Congress has passed a directive in the last Farm Bill saying we 

would label where the meat comes from and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture has done its very best to delay implementing this 

country of origin specificity. It continues to be, even in light of this 

incident, showing clearly that we don’t have a handle on the quality of food coming into this country from other places. Even now 

you take the position of U.S. Department of Agriculture that consumers should not have clear labeling so they know where their 

food comes from? 

Dr. PETERSEN. The status of where we are vis-a-vis the farm bill 

and the country of origin labeling, I will simply have to get back 

to you with the response from the department. 

24

Mr. POMEROY. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and I just would note, as 

far as I understand, there is boxed beef from Canada that is 

slaughtered in Canada that gets the USDA stamp. So there are situations where you have got product that is from another country, 

slaughtered in another country that has the USDA stamp. 

Dr. PETERSEN. Yes, when they are fabricated in a federal establishment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I just put that out there. Gentleman from 

Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

I really appreciate it. I have learned a great deal. But it wasn’t 

clear, Dr. Acheson, have you practiced medicine, as well? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes, I have. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you understand what it is like to write a prescription and have a patient fill it, and on the label of that prescription 

it says the name of the medication and its expiration date and the 

manufacturer? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. KAGEN. Wouldn’t you like to see the same thing with the 

food that you buy and your family purchases and people across 

America? 

Dr. ACHESON. I think that is a complex answer. We know, from 

consumer surveys, that most American consumers do not read labels. 

Mr. KAGEN. That may be true, but what people really want, not 

just in this room, but across the country, people want reassurance 

that the food they are eating is safe and it won’t harm them. The 

USDA has some interesting statistics that in the year 2000, over 

1200 people died from food borne illnesses: 499 died from listeria; 

553 from salmonella; 99 from campylobacter. You are aware of 

these numbers? 

Dr. ACHESON. Yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. So food is good for you. But it is healthy food that 

keeps people healthy, so along those lines, what have you got in 

place now to survey the many foods that we have coming into the 

country for the safety of these foods for human consumption, because as I understand it, only about 0.7 percent of the imported 

food is now being inspected. Bearing in mind that it was February 

of 2006 when we became a net importer of food, what systems do 

you have in place now to reassure the American public that the 

food that they are eating is safe? 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, as I said earlier, the current systems are 

based on where we see the risk, both in terms of the products that 

are of greater concern and the agents, the pathogens or the chemicals or the pesticides that are of greater concern. That is what the 

focus is at the border, in terms of what you put the energies into. 

If we see a problem with a particular food, we will concentrate on 

it. An example recently was cantaloupes from Mexico. We had some 

problems before with salmonella. We continued to test them, they 

were fine for several years. Then, just recently, several months ago, 

there was a problem again. We picked it up. So that is what I 

mean by it is a risk-based strategy. 

25

Mr. KAGEN. Well, I would like to know that the medicines my patients put in their mouths are safe. I would like to know that the 

food that mothers put into their children’s mouths is safe, as well, 

and along those lines, I have been very outspoken in being an advocate for country of origin labeling and maybe we can get to that 

at another time. Would you agree that it might be time for people 

in this country to begin to think about the idea of eating locally 

grown foods? Would you agree with that concept? 

Dr. ACHESON. I am all about people eating safe and secure food, 

whether it is grown locally or 5,000 miles away is moot so long as 

we can ensure the safety of it. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, can you reassure me that any milk products 

or milk protein concentrates coming from India or elsewhere are 

free of any pesticides? Have you done any tests? Has anyone surveyed it? 

Dr. ACHESON. As I said, there are assignments that are underway, looking for pesticide residues from various places, but I don’t 

have the specific numbers in terms of how much we are doing. But 

in that context, I would point out that you can get illness from local 

problems just as you can from global, so whatever strategies you 

put in place, it needs to apply to the farm down to the street as 

well as the farm in another country. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, along those lines, perhaps instead of repeating 

a phrase from a former Republican president about trust but 

verify, perhaps a better phrase is a more ancient one and that is 

caveat emptor and buyer beware. So you are working closely with 

the FSIS, is that correct? 

Dr. ACHESON. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. And what further plans have you got to wrap up the 

melamine investigation? 

Dr. ACHESON. We are working very closely with the hog and 

poultry issue, primarily, with FSIS. Multiple calls every day, right 

through the weekend, as this moves forward and that is continuing 

and it will continue until that part of the melamine investigation 

is completed. 

Mr. KAGEN. Have you looked system-wide at the FSIS, USDA 

and FDA to determine if your budgets are adequate to meet these 

needs? 

Dr. ACHESON. I certainly have not looked at USDA’s budget, but 

as I have said, part of the strategic approach that we need to undertake at FDA, for which I have been given leadership, is to ask 

that very question. Where are we strategically? Where do we want 

to go with prevention, intervention and response? What resources 

do we need to get there? 

Mr. KAGEN. I look forward to working with you in the 110th Congress to reassure the public that the food they are eating is safe 

and especially, as I am going to be looking at the nutritional needs 

of children for lunch programs and breakfast programs on our subcommittees. Thank you for your testimony and I yield back my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Donnelly. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regards to food 

products coming in from China, such as fish products, what inspecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
26

tion has been done to determine what foods were used to feed those 

fish in China? 

Dr. ACHESON. At this point, we don’t have the resources to determine what those fish have been fed. When the melamine situation 

arose, we did not have an assay, a method to detect melamine in 

fish. In the last couple of weeks, our scientists have developed one, 

they validated it and it is now in place in our labs. 

As we were discussing earlier, we are already obtaining samples, 

looking for fluoroquinolones and other residues in fish and those 

same fish are now going to be tested for melamine and melamine 

related compounds when we have those assays. Right now it is just 

melamine, to get the beginnings of a surveillance assignment for 

fish. Now, once we have done that, that is going to give us an idea 

of what we are dealing with and we are going to have to then react 

appropriately to that. But we couldn’t get the resources, the individuals into every fish farm in China. 

Mr. DONNELLY. For fish products coming to this country now 

that are coming in, we don’t know what they have been fed and 

they are still going into the supermarkets. Would that be a fair 

statement? 

Dr. ACHESON. That is correct. 

Mr. DONNELLY. So these fish products that are coming into our 

supermarkets now, there could well be melamine in those fish? 

Dr. ACHESON. We cannot rule it out. That is part of what the assignment will tell us. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, let me ask you this. In so many cases, 

other countries are so quick to ban our food products and shut the 

door on our food products. Why do we continue to let these products come into our country when this possibility exists? 

Dr. ACHESON. Clearly, in order to, as I understand it with our 

current authorities, we have to demonstrate there is a problem. 

Your questioning has gone down the line of we believe or speculate 

there could be a problem with fish. We don’t have any evidence of 

that at this point. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Did you happen to see the article in the New 

York Times that discussed how animal feed producers have used 

this ingredient with fish farms time after time after time in China? 

Dr. ACHESON. Understood. And clearly, if we reacted to everything that we read in the New York Times in terms of what we 

did, we would be in trouble. 

Mr. DONNELLY. I am not using just the Times. I am using the 

fact that we found hogs and poultry in this country. I mean, at 

what time do we put the benefit of the doubt on behalf of the consumer where this product is coming in, instead of trying to cover 

these things over? When do we stand up for our consumers? As Mr. 

Etheridge was mentioning, his 27-pound grandchild might be eating this fish tonight. How do we let this continue? 

Dr. ACHESON. Without some specific evidence that there is a 

problem with it, we don’t have the authority to ban it based on the 

sorts of information that you are describing to me. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, then that brings me to my next question, 

which is are we finding out who in China knew? How are we tracing back the steps? Have we found the different facilities? Obviously, we have located some of them, but have we found if any govVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
27

ernment officials in China knew, and who have we talked to on the 

government level? 

Dr. ACHESON. We are working very closely with the Chinese food 

safety authority, AQSIQ, on this whole issue around melamine. 

Clearly, they are aware of this problem. We have assisted them in 

setting up assays to measure melamine, which they didn’t previously have. I think you are asking a very good question. At this 

stage of the investigation, we just simply don’t have all the answers. 

Mr. DONNELLY. So we don’t have the answers, but the products 

keep coming in at this point. 

Dr. ACHESON. They are coming in, they are being tested and if 

they test positive, clearly, we are not going to ignore that and we 

will take appropriate action, which could potentially, at the far end 

of the spectrum, be an import alert on fish. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Okay. 

Dr. ACHESON. But we are not there yet. 

Mr. DONNELLY. But at this time, these products are still landing 

in Seattle or somewhere else and being distributed? 

Dr. ACHESON. Correct. At this point, we do not have the authority to prevent that. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Do you have a list of your most likely potential 

problems other than melamine? Do you have an active list of scenarios of what areas we are concerned about? 

Dr. ACHESON. Absolutely. Both on a food safety front and a food 

defense front, we have created risk-based lists in terms of what 

pathogen or chemical or radiological agent might be intentionally 

or unintentionally put in a food product, what type of food might 

it go into, and this is particularly true of food defense, where we 

have applied this very assiduously. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Was melamine on any of these lists? 

Dr. ACHESON. It wasn’t. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Okay. Could you share those lists with the 

Chairman, who would then share them with us? 

Dr. ACHESON. I would be happy to. Those lists are classified, so 

within those confines, sure. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I was wondering if there 

have been different discussions about how to deal with this and apparently, you have added an new position at FDA. What are your 

reactions to these folks that want to create a new food agency that 

is separate where that they set up some separate agency and I 

guess put all you guys in there or something. What is your reaction 

to that? 

Dr. ACHESON. Are you asking me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Both of you. 

Dr. ACHESON. Well, let me start. I think whenever one is looking 

to make change, you need to be very careful that in the process you 

don’t actually make matters worse. Whether that is a big reorganization or a small one, and the one that you are alluding to would 

be big. Simply moving boxes around seldom solves a problem. However this is approached, it needs to be approached strategically; it 

needs to be approached with adequate resources and it needs to be 

done carefully. Ultimately, with your suggestion, could it work, poVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:59 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\110-19\41165.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
28

tentially, at some point? Sure, perhaps. But it would need to be 

done in the way I have described. Right now, the system, with the 

communication that we have between the various agencies, is 

working remarkably well. We have constant interaction, constant 

communication. And I would worry that simply embarking on a 

strategy like that could, in fact, put us back and not bring us forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that has been my concern too, given the experience we had with Homeland Security. Hopefully we learned our 

lesson, but we could actually put ourselves in a situation that 

seems like we are, in my opinion, not doing anywhere near what 

we should in terms of all this imported food coming in. If we try 

to do something like this, we would basically be out of commission 

for two years. It would probably make sense to just stop importing 

food while we are going through this, because we couldn’t guarantee anything, during all the commotion that happens. So it 

seems you have some of the same concerns I do. Mr. Petersen? 

Dr. PETERSEN. I would agree. Certainly we need to have a notion 

of what the solution is going to do as far as addressing the problem 

you think you are trying to solve. I think the agencies, the FDA 

and USDA, in this situation, certainly have complementary authorities. I don’t see a lot of duplicative authorities and so this current situation, I think is an example of how the agencies can leverage their individual resources and get their arms around a particular problem. Are there always better ways to do things? Certainly. And I think we will always try to find those better ways, 

but our work seems to be complementary with FDA at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote. But the other thing I am wondering about is that I am sure that whatever you guys come up 

with is going to take extra resources. When I look at the huge increase of volume and the fact that we haven’t had any new resources, I think that is going to be pretty apparent. My concern is 

with rules now and us trying to finally get a handle on this budget 

deficit. How are we going to pay for this? I know the administration has proposed user fees, which has been dead on arrival in Congress. Has there been any thought or will there be any thought to 

how in the world we will finance this? One question I have is, 

under the trade agreements, could we put this cost on the countries 

where we are trying to get the food supply certified? Is it possible 

to actually add the cost on to what is being imported into the country to pay for this or is that in violation of the WTO agreements? 

Do you know? 

Dr. ACHESON. I don’t specifically know the answer to your question, but all of those different complexities would have to be examined and you are correct, finding a way to pay for this is a key 

question. But you can’t do that until you figure out what it is that 

you want to do and we need to do it quickly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else? We got a couple of minutes. Ms. 

Musgrave or Mr. Boustany, anything else for the good of the order 

here? 

Ms. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say, 

that as I talked to my constituents, their main concern is food that 

comes from other countries. Although you have pointed out very 

appropriately that we also have problems with food grown in the 

29

United States, people have talked to me especially about the vulnerability of young children and how they react to E. coli and Listeria and many of those things that are so very dangerous to small 

children. 

It is not only the food consumed in homes of course, it is in restaurants too. Sometimes it is the way the food is handled. But we 

do make the assumption in this country that our food is safe, for 

the most part. What a horrific job you have in front of you, but this 

issue with the pet food has certainly illustrated our vulnerability 

and when we do make those assumptions that this is safe and we 

are going to be able to feed it to our children, we may be very 

wrong. 

I also worry about the consequences of people that would do 

harm to citizens in our nation. Now that this has happened, they 

are now very aware of how vulnerable we are. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Boustany? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I would just say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing. Gentlemen, your testimony and your answers 

to the questions were very informative. I certainly appreciate it 

and we look forward to working with you as we go forward. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and we will look forward 

to the information that was requested by the committee members 

being forwarded to us. Again, thank you for being with us today 

and I am sure we will be discussing this more often as time goes 

along. Thank you very much. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

30


41165.001
31


41165.002
32


41165.003
33


41165.004
34


41165.005
35


41165.006
36


41165.007
37


41165.008
38


41165.009
39


41165.010
40


41165.011
41


41165.012
42


41165.013
43


41165.014
44


41165.015
45


41165.016
46


41165.017
47


41165.018
48


41165.019
49


41165.020
50


41165.021
51


41165.022
52


41165.023
53


41165.024
54


41165.025
55


41165.026
56


41165.027
57


41165.028
58


41165.029
59


41165.030
60


41165.031
61


41165.032
62


41165.033
63


41165.034
64


41165.035
65


41165.036
66


41165.037
67


41165.038
68


41165.039
69


41165.040
70


41165.041
71


41165.042
72


41165.043
73


41165.044
74

Æ


41165.045