Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety Systems
Published: 2005-02-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The safety and quality of the U.S. food supply are governed by a complex system that is administered by 15 agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have primary responsibility for food safety. Many legislative proposals have been made to consolidate the U.S. food safety system, but to date no other action has been taken. Several countries have taken steps to streamline and consolidate their food safety systems. In 1999, we reported on the initial experiences of four of these countries--Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Since then, additional countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, have undertaken consolidations. This report describes the approaches and challenges these countries faced in consolidating food safety functions, including the benefits and costs cited by government officials and other stakeholders. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS and USDA said that the countries' consolidation experiences have limited applicability to the U.S. food safety system because the countries are much smaller than the United States. The two agencies believe that they are working together effectively to ensure the safety of the food supply.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In consolidating their food safety systems, the seven countries we examined--Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom--varied in their approaches and the extent to which they consolidated. However, the countries' approaches were similar in one respect--each established a single agency to lead food safety management or enforcement of food safety legislation. These countries had two primary reasons for consolidating their food safety systems--public concern about the safety of the food supply and the need to improve program effectiveness and efficiency. Countries faced challenges in (1) deciding whether to place the agency within the existing health or agriculture ministry or establish it as a stand-alone agency while also determining what responsibilities the new agency would have and (2) helping employees adjust to the new agency's culture and support its priorities. Although none of the countries has analyzed the results of its consolidation, government officials consistently stated that the net effect of their country's consolidation has been or will likely be beneficial. Officials in most countries stated their new food safety agencies incurred consolidation start-up costs. However, in each country, government officials believe that consolidation costs have been or will likely be exceeded by the benefits. These officials and food industry and consumer stakeholders cited significant qualitative improvements in the effectiveness or efficiency of their food safety systems. These improvements include less overlap in inspections, greater clarity in responsibilities, and more consistent or timely enforcement of food safety laws and regulations. In addition to these qualitative benefits, officials from three countries, Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands, identified areas where they believe financial savings may be achieved as a result of consolidation. For example, in the Netherlands officials said that reduced duplication in food safety inspections would likely result in decreased food safety spending and that they anticipate savings from an expected 25 percent reduction in administrative and management personnel. Although the seven countries we reviewed are much smaller than the United States, they are also high-income countries where consumers have very high expectations for food safety. Consequently, we believe that the countries' experiences in consolidating food safety systems can offer useful information to U.S. policymakers.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As we have previously reported, the federal food safety system in the  United States emerged piecemeal, over many decades, typically in response  to particular health threats or economic crises. The result is a fragmented  legal and organizational structure that gives responsibility for specific food  commodities to different agencies and provides them with significantly  different authorities to enforce food safety laws. In fiscal year 2003, the  principal federal agencies with food safety responsibilities spent nearly  $1.7 billion to ensure the safety and quality of the U.S. food supply.
Many legislative proposals have been made to reform existing laws and  consolidate the U.S. food safety system, but to date no action has been  taken. Most recently, in 2004, parallel Senate and House bills proposed  combining the food safety regulatory programs of the U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within  the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the voluntary  seafood inspection program operated by the Department of Commerce.
Several countries have taken steps to streamline and consolidate food  safety functions. In 1999, we reported on the experiences of four  countries—Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom—that were  consolidating their food safety systems. In response to your interest in  learning about these and other countries’ experiences with consolidation,  we updated information on the countries covered in the 1999 report and  included information on three other countries that have also undertaken  consolidation efforts—Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. This  report describes the approaches these seven countries have taken in  consolidating food safety functions, the challenges they faced, and the  results of the countries’ efforts, including benefits and costs cited by  government officials and industry or consumer stakeholders.
To develop this information, we examined the seven countries’ efforts to  streamline and consolidate their food safety systems, including the  benefits and costs that resulted, as cited by government officials. We  conducted structured interviews with senior government officials from  food safety, agriculture, and health agencies and with representatives of  food industry and consumer organizations, reviewed and analyzed the  documents they provided, and reviewed World Health Organization and  GAO reports. We also met with European Union (EU) food safety officials  to discuss how the EU’s food legislation is affecting its member countries’  decisions to consolidate, as well as how the EU interacts with food safety  agencies in member countries. The information on countries’ food safety  systems in this report, including descriptions of laws, is based almost  exclusively on interviews with and documentation provided by high-level  food safety officials as well as food industry or consumer stakeholders  from the seven countries we examined. Most of the information we  obtained was qualitative. To the extent possible, we corroborated the  qualitative information provided by government officials by interviewing  food industry and consumer organization stakeholders. We obtained very  limited quantitative information. We asked government officials questions  intended to help us assess the reliability of the quantitative information  they provided, but we could not determine the reliability of most of this  information because of constraints on the amount of time the countries’  food safety officials could devote to our study. Although we could not  assess the quantitative information’s reliability, we are reporting it in order  to provide descriptive information that will inform policymakers in the  United States about the various approaches, challenges, and benefits that  countries’ officials identified to us regarding their consolidation efforts.
Appendix I provides more information on our scope and methodology. We  conducted our work from April 2004 through December 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: While the U.S. food supply is generally safe, each year, according to a  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate, tens of  millions of Americans become ill and thousands die from eating unsafe  food. Furthermore, USDA’s Economic Research Service has estimated that  the costs associated with foodborne illnesses are about $7 billion, including  medical costs and productivity losses from missed work.
The safety and quality of the U.S. food supply is governed by a complex  system that is administered by 15 agencies. The principal federal agencies  with food safety responsibilities operate under numerous statutes  underpinning the federal framework for ensuring the safety and quality of  the food supply in the United States. These laws give the agencies different  regulatory and enforcement authorities, and about 70 interagency  agreements aim to coordinate the combined food safety oversight  responsibilities of the various agencies. The federal system is  supplemented by the states, which have their own statutes, regulations,  and agencies for regulating and inspecting the safety and quality of food  products.
USDA and FDA have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of  foods. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service regulates meat, poultry,  and certain egg products, and FDA regulates the safety of all other foods,  including milk, seafood, and fruits and vegetables. The Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits on the amount of pesticide residues  that are allowed in food, and the National Marine Fisheries Service within  the Department of Commerce provides fee-for-service inspections to  ensure the safety and/or quality of commercial seafood. Similarly, USDA’s  Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) performs food quality assurance  inspections that include food safety elements. In addition to their  established food safety responsibilities, USDA, FDA, and EPA, along with  the Department of Homeland Security, have begun to address food  security. Figure 1 summarizes the 15 agencies and their food safety  responsibilities.
Many proposals have been made to consolidate the U.S. food safety system,  but to date no action has been taken. Several bills introduced in the  Congress, reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the National  Commission on the Public Service, and several of our reports and  testimonies have proposed consolidation of the U.S. food safety system.  For example, in 2001, parallel Senate and House bills proposed  consolidating inspections and other food safety responsibilities in a single  independent agency. In 2004, legislation was again introduced in the Senate  and the House to establish a single food safety agency to protect public  health, ensure food safety, and improve research and food security. This  proposed legislation would combine the two food safety regulatory  programs of USDA and FDA, along with a voluntary seafood inspection  program operated by the Department of Commerce. The proposed new  food safety program would have been based on a comprehensive analysis  of the hazards associated with different foods and their processing and  would require, among other things, the enforcement of the adoption of  process controls in food establishments as well as the establishment and  enforcement of science-based standards.
In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences recommended integrating the  U.S. food safety system and suggested several options, including a single  food safety agency. More recently, the National Commission on the Public  Service recommended that government programs that are designed to  achieve similar outcomes be combined into one agency and that agencies  with similar or related missions be combined into large departments. The  Commission chairman testified before a House subcommittee that  important health and safety protections fail when responsibility for  regulation is dispersed among several departments, as is the case with the  U.S. food safety system.
The division of responsibility among several government agencies  responsible for food safety is not unique to the United States. Food safety  officials in the countries we selected for this review said they faced similar  divisions of responsibilities and that their countries’ reorganizations were  intended to address this problem.
Although the seven countries whose food safety systems we reviewed are  much smaller in population than the United States, they, like the United  States, are high-income countries where consumers have very high  expectations for food safety. Table 1 presents data on population, size of  economy, food expenditures, and consumer spending for food as a  percentage of total consumer spending for the seven countries and the  United States. The table shows that U.S. consumers’ spending on food as a  percentage of their total spending is somewhat similar to that of the other  seven countries, ranging from about 10 percent in the United States to over  16 percent in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In general, high-income  countries tend to spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than  low-income countries. For instance, in low-income countries consumers’  spending for food often exceeds 50 percent of their total spending.
Most of the countries we selected for this review are members of the EU  and, as such, must abide by EU food safety legislation. The development  and implementation of EU food safety legislation is the responsibility of the  Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General. In 2002, to respond  to consumer concerns about the safety of the food supply, the EU created a  new independent food safety institution, the European Food Safety  Authority (EFSA), which is responsible for providing independent,  scientific advice on all matters linked to food and animal feed safety. The  tasks performed by EFSA include communicating with the public on food  safety matters and providing risk assessments to the European  Commission, the European Parliament, and the EU Member States.
In addition to creating EFSA in April 2004, the EU adopted additional,  comprehensive food safety legislation that becomes effective, in large  part, on January 1, 2006. Together with the earlier regulation establishing  EFSA, the legislation is intended to create a single, transparent set of EU  food safety rules applicable to all food, including animal and nonanimal  products. The legislation covers the entire food supply chain from  production to consumption and places more requirements on EU member  nations. It identifies specific food safety objectives and, unlike much of the  EU’s previous food safety legislation, specifies the methods by which those  objectives must be achieved. For example, it requires food business  operators to adopt specific hygiene measures and a permanent procedure  or procedures based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point  principles. Moreover, the legislation requires that each EU country  establish and implement an official food and animal feed control plan by  January 1, 2007. Thereafter, an annual report on the implementation of this  national control plan must be submitted. To carry out its official controls  over food and animal feed, a country must designate responsible entities. If  a country has more than one responsible entity, it must ensure effective  coordination between these entities. According to a paper presented at a  2004 international forum for food safety regulators, in recent years many  EU countries have chosen to establish a national food safety authority, but  the establishment of such an authority is not obligatory.
section_title: Countries Have Taken Various Consolidation Approaches, and Officials and Stakeholders Cited Challenges and Costs but Believe Food Safety Systems Are Now More Effective
paragraphs: The seven countries we examined had two primary reasons for  reorganizing and consolidating their food safety systems, took various  approaches, and often faced similar challenges. While the extent to which  countries consolidated their food safety systems varied considerably, each  country established a single agency to lead food safety management or  enforcement of food safety legislation. Although most countries incurred  some consolidation start-up costs, government officials, as well as food  industry and consumer stakeholders, generally agree that consolidation  has led to significant qualitative improvements in the effectiveness or  efficiency of their food safety systems. Our ability to evaluate these  improvements and other information officials provided was limited  because none of the countries has conducted an analysis to measure the  effectiveness and efficiency of its consolidated food safety system relative  to that of the previous system. In some cases, it may be too early to fully  assess the benefits of the countries’ consolidations.
The seven countries whose reorganizations we reviewed consolidated their  food safety systems primarily to improve program effectiveness and  efficiency or to respond to public concern about food safety.
According to a 1998 National Research Council report, an effective food  safety system protects and improves the public health by ensuring that  foods meet science-based safety standards through the integrated activities  of the public and private sectors. This report also addresses efficiency,  stating the greatest strides in ensuring food safety from production to  consumption can be made through a scientific risk-based system that  ensures that surveillance, regulatory, and research resources are allocated  to maximize effectiveness. Public concern about food safety became an  important issue in several industrialized countries during the 1990s when  bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow  disease, was confirmed in large numbers of cattle. In addition to  improving effectiveness and efficiency and responding to public concern  about food safety, some EU countries were further prompted to  consolidate by the need to comply with recently approved EU food safety  legislation that becomes effective, in large part, January 1, 2006. The new  legislation places more requirements on EU member countries. For  example, each EU member country will be required to submit and annually  update a plan for the implementation of the new law and to report annually  on the implementation of that plan.
Regarding consolidation approaches, each country established a single  agency to lead food safety management or enforcement of food safety  legislation. Each country modified its existing legal framework to give legal  authority and responsibility to the new food safety agency. However,  countries’ approaches in consolidating their food safety systems varied,  particularly with respect to how comprehensively food safety functions  were consolidated. For example, Denmark centralized its system by  creating a new federal agency in which it consolidated almost all its food  safety functions and activities, including food inspections, which were  previously distributed among several federal and local government  agencies. On the other hand, in Germany, which established a new lead  food safety agency, the 16 federal states continue to be responsible for  oversight of food inspections performed by local governments. Germany’s  new food safety agency functions as a coordinating body to lead food  safety management, including formulation of general administrative rules  to guide the federal states’ implementation of national food safety laws.
In reorganizing their food safety systems, officials from several countries  cited challenges in two areas. First, many countries faced a similar decision  regarding whether to place the new agency within the existing health or  agriculture ministry or establish it as a stand-alone agency while also  determining what responsibilities the new agency would have. A second  challenge, cited by officials in several countries, was helping employees  assimilate into the new agency’s culture and support its priorities.
Although countries have not formally analyzed consolidation results, the  government officials and stakeholders we interviewed in each of the seven  countries cited improvements in food safety system operations and stated  that the net effect of consolidation has been or will likely be positive. None  of the countries has conducted an analysis to measure the effectiveness  and efficiency of its consolidated food safety system relative to that of the  previous system. For example, officials stated that they could not  determine whether their country’s consolidation had resulted in public  health benefits, such as reduced foodborne illness, because consolidation  was only one of many factors that could affect the frequency of foodborne  illness. Furthermore, it may be too early to fully assess the benefits of  consolidation for several of the countries, as their countries’ new food  safety structures have been functioning for 3 years or less. Although  limited, some information on costs and benefits was available. As  expected, most countries incurred start-up costs, which included, for  example, the acquisition of buildings and purchases of laboratory  equipment. Some countries experienced a temporary reduction in the  quantity of food safety activities performed due to consolidation-related  disruptions. However, government officials in each of the seven countries  believe the benefits of their consolidations have exceeded or will likely  exceed the costs. In particular, these officials, as well as food industry and  consumer stakeholders in each country, consistently stated that  consolidation of their food safety systems has led to significant qualitative  improvements in food safety operations that enhance effectiveness or  efficiency. These improvements include the reduction of overlapping food  safety activities, such as inspections of food establishments by various  agencies. (Figure 2 summarizes each country’s improvements in food  safety operations as cited by government officials, food industry  stakeholders, or consumer stakeholders.) Moreover, government officials  in Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark stated that some cost savings  may be achieved as a result of changes that have already taken place or are  expected from planned changes needed to complete their consolidation  efforts.
Figures 3 through 9 show summary information on each country’s reasons  for consolidation, entities responsible for food safety before and after  consolidation, challenges, and start-up and other consolidation-related  costs, as well as examples of consolidation benefits. This information was  provided by government officials and food industry or consumer  stakeholders. For more detailed information on each country, see  appendixes II through VIII.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Although different in many respects, the seven countries’ experiences  provide information on the reform and consolidation of food safety  systems that can be useful to U.S. policymakers. While the seven countries  had to overcome challenges, their experiences show that reforming and  streamlining food safety systems is possible when a consensus exists  among government agencies, the food industry, and consumer  organizations. As we learned from food safety officials and industry and  consumer stakeholders in each country we reviewed, such reforms may  result in benefits such as reducing overlaps in food safety inspections and  basing the frequency of inspections on the risks posed by specific products.  We have reported in the past that the federal food safety system in the  United States could benefit from statutory and organizational reforms. As  Congress and other policymakers consider the advantages and  disadvantages of streamlining multiple existing food safety statutes into a  uniform and risk-based framework and whether to consolidate federal food  safety functions under a single agency, these countries’ lessons may offer  useful information.
section_title: Comments from the Seven Countries Examined
paragraphs: We provided relevant excerpts from a draft of this report to officials of food  safety agencies in Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands,  New Zealand, and the United Kingdom for their review. The officials either  replied that they had no technical comments or provided technical  corrections, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: Although this report does not evaluate HHS’s or USDA’s food safety  programs and, therefore, makes no recommendations to the agencies, we  provided a draft copy to HHS and USDA for review and comment. In  commenting on this report, both HHS and USDA stated that U.S. food  safety agencies are working together effectively.
HHS noted that our report provides limited quantitative data on the results  of each country’s consolidation. The report clearly states that the  information presented was obtained primarily through structured  interviews with high-level government officials and food industry and  consumer stakeholders from each of the seven countries we reviewed. In  addition, our report acknowledges that these officials provided limited  quantitative data; when it was provided to us, we included it in the report.  Our report also acknowledges that none of the countries has conducted a  formal analysis to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of its  consolidated food safety system with that of the previous system. HHS also  commented that the countries included in our report have smaller food and  agriculture industries than the United States. We agree, and our report  highlights such differences in table 1, which shows that the seven countries  have smaller economies and less total food consumption than the United  States. Our report also points out, however, that these countries are similar  to the United States in that they are high-income countries where  consumers have high expectations for food safety. Finally, HHS  commented that the report does not identify the agencies that are  responsible for foodborne illness surveillance in each of the countries we  reviewed. We have added a footnote to indicate that the report does not  contain that information. HHS also provided technical comments, which  we have incorporated in the report as appropriate. HHS’s comments are  presented in appendix IX.
In its comments, USDA stated that the report does not contain rigorous  cost-benefit analyses or quantitative data on the public health effects of the  countries’ consolidations, such as changes in foodborne illness rates. Our  report clearly acknowledges that we obtained limited quantitative  information and that none of the countries has conducted an analysis to  compare the effectiveness and efficiency of its consolidated food safety  system with that of the previous system. Specifically, with regard to the  effect of consolidation on public health benefits, the report states that  officials told us they could not determine whether their country’s  consolidation had reduced foodborne illness because consolidation was  one of many factors that could influence the frequency of foodborne  illness. USDA also stated that the report does not contain quantitative data  on reorganization costs. This statement is incorrect. All but one of the  seven countries provided information on the costs of reorganization, which  the report presents in figures 3 through 9. Similar to HHS, USDA  commented that the countries we reviewed have much smaller populations  and also differ from the United States in climate and agricultural  production. Our report identifies differences of this type in table 1. The  report points out, however, that these countries and the United States have  at least one important similarity: they are high-income countries where  consumers have high expectations for food safety. As a result, we believe  the consolidation experiences of the countries reviewed have applicability  to the United States. USDA also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate. USDA’s comments are included  in appendix X.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and Human  Services, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to  others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please call me at  (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report describes the approaches the seven countries have taken in  consolidating food safety functions, the challenges they faced, and the  results of the countries’ efforts, including benefits and costs cited by  government officials and industry or consumer stakeholders.
For the purposes of this report, we defined consolidation as the transfer of  responsibility and resources for performing a food safety function from  two or more agencies to a single agency.
To identify countries that have consolidated their food safety systems, we  interviewed USDA and FDA officials, reviewed a 2001World Health  Organization report on how countries have organized their food safety  systems, and reviewed the Internet sites of countries’ food safety agencies.  We selected a judgmental sample of seven countries for our review based  on the following criteria: USDA and FDA officials agreed that these  countries have consolidated, the countries have high per capita income,  and the countries have consolidated functions of their food safety system  within the last 10 years.
To address our objective, we examined the seven countries’ efforts to  streamline and consolidate their food safety systems, including the benefits  and costs that resulted, as cited by government officials. We conducted  structured interviews with senior government officials from food safety  agencies and with representatives of food industry or consumer  organizations in each country, reviewed and analyzed the documents they  provided, and reviewed World Health Organization and GAO reports. We  also met with European Union (EU) food safety officials to discuss how the  EU’s food legislation is affecting its member countries’ decisions to  consolidate, as well as how the EU interacts with food safety agencies in  member countries.
The information on countries’ food safety systems in this report, including  descriptions of laws, is based almost exclusively on interviews with and  documentation provided by high-level food safety officials as well as food  industry or consumer stakeholders from the seven countries we examined.
Most of the information we obtained was qualitative. To the extent  possible, we corroborated the qualitative information provided by  government officials by interviewing food industry and consumer  organization stakeholders. We obtained very limited quantitative  information. We asked government officials questions intended to help us  assess the reliability of the quantitative information they provided, but we  could not determine the reliability of most of this information because of  constraints on the amount of time the countries’ food safety officials could  devote to our study. Although we could not assess the quantitative  information’s reliability, we are reporting it in order to provide descriptive  information to inform policymakers in the United States about the various  approaches, challenges, and benefits that countries’ officials identified to  us regarding their consolidation efforts.
The data in table 2 on selected countries’ population, gross domestic  product, food consumption, income, and consumer spending were used for  background purposes and were not verified.
We conducted our work from April 2004 through December 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Canada’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: In 1997, Canada consolidated its food inspection activities with the  creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Food safety standard  setting, research, and risk assessment were consolidated within Health  Canada.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: Canada consolidated its food safety system to (1) improve effectiveness by  making inspections and enforcement more consistent, clarifying  responsibilities, and enhancing reporting to the Canadian parliament, (2)  improve efficiency by reducing duplication and overlap in food safety  activities, and (3) reduce federal spending.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before Canada consolidated its food safety system, its food safety  inspection, food policy, and risk assessment responsibilities were shared  by three separate entities—Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food  Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
In 1997, the Canadian parliament approved the Canadian Food Inspection  Agency (CFIA) Act. All food safety inspection activities were assigned to  CFIA, a separate regulatory agency whose president reports to the Minister  of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. CFIA is responsible for all food  safety inspections and related activities, including inspections of imported  and domestic products, export certifications, laboratory and diagnostic  support, crisis management, and product recalls. CFIA is also responsible  for food quality assurance inspections and animal health and plant disease  control. Canada has adopted a comprehensive farm-to-table approach to  food safety responsibilities.
Public health policy and standard-setting responsibilities including  research, risk assessment, and setting limits on the amount of a substance  allowed in a food product, were consolidated within Health Canada. With  the placement of food safety inspections and related activities in CFIA and  risk assessment in Health Canada, inspection responsibilities were  separated from risk assessment to allow for an independent scientific risk  assessment process.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: In 1997, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act created the agency and  gave it authority to implement existing food safety laws. Additional  legislative reform intended to increase the food safety system’s  effectiveness and efficiency beyond the gains already achieved was  introduced in the Canadian parliament in November 2004. According to  CFIA, under this proposed legislation, the authorities for CFIA inspectors  contained in eight commodity-specific laws would be strengthened and  made consistent. In addition, the law would give CFIA additional  inspection and enforcement authorities to protect the food supply, such as  the authority to hold products while awaiting test results.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: CFIA faced a challenge in helping staff adjust to a new organization as its  work force combined former employees from the health, agriculture, and  fisheries departments. According to officials, several senior officials retired  when CFIA was being formed. As a result, the agency temporarily had less  experience at the management level than would have been optimal.  Canadian officials told us it is important to plan for the merging of  organizational cultures and to bring the new work force into a dialogue on  the new organization’s vision and objectives.
Employee unions were initially concerned that the consolidation would  lead to privatization of the food safety work force. According to a CFIA  official, these concerns decreased substantially when the work force  realized privatization was not planned. In addition, the official stated that  labor relations have improved because unions now only have to interact  with one food safety inspection agency instead of three.
In addition, assignment of responsibilities was a major obstacle during the  implementation phase of Canada’s consolidation. To address this challenge,  Health Canada and CFIA jointly developed a food safety functions matrix  to clearly define responsibilities.
section_title: Annual Expenditures and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to a senior official, CFIA’s fiscal year 2003 food safety spending  was $360 million Canadian ($232 million U.S.). Spending for all of its  activities—food safety, animal health, and plant protection—was $517  million Canadian ($334 million U.S.). User fees assessed on food  establishments financed a portion of this spending. These user fees for  food inspections have been frozen at about $40 million Canadian (about  $26 million U.S.) since 1997 and in fiscal year 2003 accounted for about 11  percent of CFIA’s food safety spending.
According to a Health Canada official, the fiscal year 2004 budget for  Health Canada’s food program was about $42 million Canadian ($31 million  U.S.).
Reducing spending was one of Canada’s objectives in consolidating its food  safety system. A senior CFIA official stated that during the agency’s first  two years, fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the consolidation reduced food safety  operating expenditures by 10 percent relative to preconsolidation food  safety spending. The official based this statement on his knowledge of  food safety operating expenditures before and after the consolidation. The  official noted that Canada has not performed an analysis on the effect of its  consolidation on food safety expenditures. According to the official, such  an analysis would be difficult because (1) the last audited preconsolidation  quantification of food safety expenditures was published in a 1994 report  by Canada’s Office of the Auditor General and (2) in fiscal year 1997, when  the CFIA was formed, food safety, animal health, and plant health  expenditures were not separated in financial reports. The agency began  separating these expenditures in financial reports beginning in fiscal year  2000.
According to the CFIA official, CFIA’s work force consisted of about 5,300  employees in fiscal year 2003. According to a Health Canada official, the  Health Canada food program had approximately 400 staff in fiscal year  2004.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: The food industry stakeholders we interviewed were consistently  supportive of Canada’s consolidation. Among the consolidation-related  benefits they cited were improved communications, particularly with  respect to food recalls; easier interaction with regulators through having a  single contact for enforcement and compliance; fewer inspectors visiting  processing plants; clarification of responsibilities; and increased  consistency in the enforcement of food safety laws.
While expressing overall support for the consolidation, representatives of  some food industry organizations cited a need for more timely decision  making. For example, representatives of one organization said their  member companies, which, they said, often have more technical expertise  than the government authorities on specific matters, sometimes have to  wait too long for a decision on a food safety question and lose commercial  opportunities as a result. In addition, some industry representatives said  Health Canada’s setting of standards should better reflect CFIA’s ability to  enforce the standards.
section_title: Denmark’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: In 1997, Denmark consolidated its food safety system with the creation of  the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: Denmark consolidated its food safety system to (1) improve effectiveness  in several areas, including communications with consumers and  consistency of inspections and (2) improve efficiency in numerous ways,  such as by moving resources to areas that present higher risks and  reducing overlaps in responsibilities.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before Denmark consolidated its food safety system, responsibilities for  inspections were shared by multiple entities, including the Ministry of  Agriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries, and a large number of municipalities.  Standard-setting responsibilities were shared by the Ministry of Health, the  Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Fisheries.
In 1997, the Danish government consolidated the multiple agencies’  activities into the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (DVFA), an  agency of the newly formed Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries.  Inspections were consolidated within the DVFA in 1999 and 2000. In August  2004, as part of a governmental reorganization, the Danish Veterinary and  Food Administration was moved to the newly created Ministry of Family  and Consumer Affairs.
The DVFA is responsible for almost all food safety responsibilities. For  logistical reasons, a few duties were not moved to the new agency in 1999  and 2000. These remaining duties are with the Plant Directorate, which is  responsible for animal feed inspections, and the Directorate for Fisheries,  which is responsible for inspections of fish on ships. These two agencies  are in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries. According to  officials, the DVFA has farm-to-table food safety responsibilities.
Denmark has separated risk management and risk assessment. The Danish  Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, a separate institute within the  DVFA, is responsible for research and risk assessment.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: The Danish Food Act, adopted in 1998, reformed Danish food safety law by  replacing seven existing food laws with this single law. The legislation  harmonizes the regulation of food of animal origin and other food, and,  according to Danish officials, it is very similar to EU food legislation.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: Officials said when bringing employees from several agencies into a new  organization, it is important to establish a common culture. The  consolidation involved over 2,000 employees, including about 500  municipal inspectors who were moved to the DVFA. To foster the  development of a common organizational culture, food agency officials  moved employees to centralized locations and established online  discussion groups to familiarize employees with the mission and culture of  the organization. In addition, the division heads in the regional offices held  monthly meetings with employees.
Moreover, officials stressed the need to have adequate funding for start-up  costs.
section_title: Annual Budget and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to officials, DVFA’s budget for 2004 was 856 million Danish  kroner (about $142 million U.S.). About 61 percent of this planned spending  was to be financed by user fees assessed on food establishments. User fees  finance nearly all meat inspections.
Officials stated that DVFA had about 2,000 employees (1,820 full-time  equivalents) in 2004.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: The food industry and consumer organization representatives we  interviewed told us their organizations supported the proposed  consolidation and continue to support it. They stated that the consolidation  has improved the food safety system’s effectiveness. Improvements cited  include more consistent enforcement of food safety regulations, reduced  overlap in inspections, streamlined communications, clearer  responsibilities, and improved service delivery as a result of having a single  contact. For example, a food industry representative stated that having a  single contact leaves no doubt about which authority to approach when a  problem or question arises. In addition, the representative said Denmark’s  salmonella control program is an example of a situation where the  consolidation’s clearer responsibilities have been beneficial. Without the  consolidation, said the representative, this program probably would have  experienced conflicts between the health and agriculture ministries and  would not have been as successful.
User fees are also an important consideration for the Danish food industry.  As noted earlier, Danish food companies finance a significant portion of  DVFA’s spending through payment of user fees. According to industry  officials, the payment of these fees motivated the food industry to support  reforms in the Danish food safety system that would hold down inspection  costs.
According to a consumer organization representative, the consolidation  made food safety inspections and enforcement of laws and regulations  more consistent. Before the consolidation, the representative said, many  municipal food safety entities had insufficient expertise and resources and  the central government’s oversight of municipal food safety entities was  uneven. In addition, the representative stated that the consolidation had  facilitated the development of DVFA’s online system to report the results of  inspections. The representative believes having access to inspection  reports has contributed to Danish consumers’ continued high confidence in  the safety of their food.
section_title: Germany’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: The German parliament approved the creation of the Federal Office of  Consumer Protection and Food Safety and the Federal Institute for Risk  Assessment in 2002.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: Germany consolidated its food safety system in response to public  concerns about food safety stemming from the discovery of BSE in 2000  and other food safety problems. An additional objective was improved  compliance with EU food safety legislation.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before Germany consolidated its food safety system, responsibilities for  research, risk assessment, and communication were shared by the Federal  Ministry of Health and the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and  Forestry. Responsibilities for implementation of federal legislation and  oversight of inspections were shared by the sixteen federal German states,  and inspections were performed by municipalities and other local  governments.
In 2002, the creation of two new food safety agencies was approved by the  German Parliament. Both of the new agencies are in the Federal Ministry of  Consumer Protection, Food, and Agriculture.
The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, a coordinating  body, is responsible for leading food safety risk management. It serves as  Germany’s contact point with the European Commission, including (1)  acting as a coordinator for Food and Veterinary Office audits of compliance  with EU food safety legislation and (2) implementing in Germany the  European rapid alert system for consumer health protection and food  safety. In addition, this agency’s responsibilities include coordinating food  safety surveillance at the federal level and formulating general  administrative rules to guide the implementation of national food safety  laws by the German federal states. The federal states continue to be  responsible for implementation of food safety legislation and oversight of  food inspections performed by local governments.
The other new food safety agency is the Federal Institute for Risk  Assessment, whose responsibilities include providing impartial scientific  advice and support for the law-making activities and policies of the federal  government in all fields concerning food safety and consumer health  protection, except for animal diseases. The Federal Institute for Risk  Assessment performs risk assessments and communicates risk assessment  results to the general public. According to officials, this agency was created  to separate risk assessments from decision making. The purpose of this  separation was to increase public confidence in risk assessments by  distancing these assessments from possible political interference.
A chronology of the consolidation of Germany’s food safety system follows:  November 2000—The detection of BSE in German cattle and other food  safety issues undermined consumer confidence in the food safety  system.
July 2001—The Federal Performance Commissioner’s Report, a study of  the German food safety system, was produced by a German national  audit office task force. The report’s three main recommendations were  to (1) reorganize the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food,  and Agriculture, (2) establish a coordinating body within the federal  government, and (3) establish a scientific unit to perform risk  assessments.
December 2001—In response to the task force report’s second and third  recommendations, administrative guidance issued by the Federal  Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food, and Agriculture established the  Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety and the Federal  Institute for Risk Assessment as “institutes.”
August 2002—The German parliament approved the Consumer Health  Protection and Food Safety Restructuring Act, authorizing the creation  of these two new food safety agencies.
November 2002—The Consumer Health Protection and Food Safety  Restructuring Act took effect.
December 2003—The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food  Safety presented the federal states with a draft general administrative  regulation that would harmonize their food safety controls. As of  October 2004, German officials expected these regulations to take effect  in January 2005.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: The Consumer Health Protection and Food Safety Restructuring Act, which  took effect in November 2002, separated the fields of risk management and  risk assessment by authorizing the creation of Germany’s two new food  safety agencies.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: According to officials, negotiations between the federal government and  the federal states concerning reform of food safety law have been  complicated, as some reforms that would give the federal government  increased authority would require constitutional changes.
section_title: Annual Budget and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to officials, the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food  Safety’s budgeted spending for 2004 was 25 million euros (about $31 million  U.S.), and the budgeted 2004 spending for the Federal Institute for Risk  Assessment was 47 million euros (about $58 million U.S.).
In 2004, according to officials, the Federal Office of Consumer Protection  and Food Safety had about 350 employees, and the Federal Institute for  Risk Assessment had about 540 staff.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: The German food industry and consumer organization stakeholders we  contacted support the consolidation.
According to a representative of a major food industry organization, the  German food industry supports the creation of the Federal Office of  Consumer Protection and Food Safety because it has increased  coordination of the federal states’ food safety activities and has improved  Germany’s ability to respond to potential food safety crises. In addition, to  further improve Germany’s ability to prevent potential food safety crises  and in view of impending EU legislation, the food industry advocates  increasing the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety’s  authority to coordinate the federal states’ food safety activities, thus  enabling increased harmonization of food safety standards and control  procedures across states. Moreover, the food industry representative stated  that the separation of risk assessment and risk management has given the  food safety system more credibility in the view of the public and industry.
A representative of the consumer organization we contacted stated that the  consolidation has made the food safety system more effective. In addition,  the representative stated that the consolidation has increased German  consumers’ confidence, but added that German consumers continue to  have less confidence than consumers in other European countries. The  consumer organization favors giving the Federal Office of Consumer  Protection and Food Safety increased authority.
section_title: Ireland’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: In 1998, the Irish government enacted legislation creating the Food Safety  Authority of Ireland. The Authority assumed all responsibility for food  safety in July 1999.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: Officials stated that Ireland consolidated responsibility for food safety and  food law enforcement within a single national agency to address public  concern about food safety stemming from food scares and the detection of  BSE in Ireland. Maintaining a strong food safety system is also extremely  important for Ireland’s economy for several reasons. According to senior  food safety officials, roughly 90 percent of the country’s meat and 75  percent of food is produced for export. If trading partners lost confidence  in the food safety system, thus losing confidence in the food, exports could  decline—even without a major outbreak. In addition, Ireland’s economy  depends heavily on tourism, and outbreaks of foodborne illnesses could  affect tourism and cause serious harm to the economy. Furthermore, when  BSE was found in Irish cattle in the 1990’s, Irish consumption of meat  declined as consumers questioned the effectiveness of the Department of  Agriculture and Food, which was responsible for inspections of abattoirs,  meatpacking plants, and farms. Also, some consumers perceived that the  Department favored the interests of the food industry over consumer  protection.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structures Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: According to officials, before the consolidation of Ireland’s food safety  system, food safety functions were the responsibility of over 50 entities  across the government, including six government departments, 33 local  authorities, and eight regional health boards, with no central government  authority to coordinate all of these entities. The Department of Agriculture  and Food, inspected farms, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities  for compliance with food safety regulations and was also responsible for  the promotion of the agriculture industry. Local governments and regional  authorities (e.g., health boards) had various other food safety  responsibilities, such as inspecting meat plants producing for the home  market, production and processing of food of nonanimal origin and the  retail and catering sectors. In addition, multiple agencies were tasked with  enforcing food safety legislation with no central accountability system in  place to ensure that food safety legislation was being properly enforced or  to coordinate food safety functions and activities across the food supply  chain.
As a result of a series of food scares in the 1990s, the Irish government  undertook a review of its food safety system in 1996 to assure the safety  and quality of their food products. The government’s review eventually led  to the establishment of a lead food safety agency. The government  established an interdepartmental committee to advise the Irish parliament  on how the various food safety entities could best be coordinated. In early  1997, this committee recommended establishing a Food Safety Authority of  Ireland. Under this recommendation, the responsibility for implementation  of food safety laws would have remained with the existing agencies. The  Authority would have audited these agencies and had a voice in setting and  maintaining standards as well as in promoting good practices. Before this  recommendation was enacted, a new government took office after an  election in mid-1997. The new government believed that the Authority  should be directly accountable for all food safety functions, including  enforcement of food legislation. This proposal led to the establishment of  the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), formally established in law  under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998, and beginning its  official operation in January 1999. The legislation which established the  FSAI provides for the transfer of all relevant staff to the new agency.  Alternatively it provides that the FSAI can enter into a service contract with  existing agencies for the enforcement of food legislation. As the likely  personnel issues surrounding the smooth transfer of staff would have  delayed commencement of FSAI’s food safety enforcement role, the service  contract mechanism was used. At the time, roughly 2,000 staff, spread  across more than 50 agencies, delivered food safety services throughout  the country. Many staff had duties in addition to food safety responsibilities  and therefore officials found it difficult to transfer “food safety” personnel  to the Authority without disrupting other programs.
FSAI is an independent, science-based body that reports to the Department  of Health and Children. According to officials, the government deliberately  placed the FSAI under the auspices of the Department of Health and  Children rather than the Department of Agriculture and Food, as the  former’s focus is on consumer health and protection, whereas the latter is  associated with industry and trade development and promotion.
A Board of 10 members, appointed by the Minister of Health and Children,  governs FSAI although a chief executive officer leads day-to-day  operations. In addition, the agency has a 15 member scientific committee  that assists and advises the Board. See figure 10.
FSAI is the single regulatory authority with responsibility for enforcing  food safety legislation in Ireland. This responsibility is managed through  service contracts with agencies performing food safety activities. FSAI has  the responsibility to monitor and audit these agencies to determine how  well they fulfill the tasks laid out in their service contracts. FSAI meets  formally at least three times a year with each agency’s liaison to facilitate  monitoring of the service contracts, and began auditing the agencies on  their performance in fulfilling their service contracts, in the second half of  2004.
FSAI has risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication  responsibilities, including setting standards according to the scientific  advice (put forth by the scientific committee), making risk management  decisions with the agencies that are responsible for conducting food safety  inspection and enforcement, and communicating risks to consumers, the  food industry, and public health professionals. According to officials,  FSAI’s responsibility for food law enforcement begins when food or  animals are transported from the farm. In the fisheries and aquaculture  sector, it has responsibility for food law at the level of primary production.  However, feed safety and animal welfare are outside its jurisdiction.
Procedures are in place to deal with food scares and food crises, should  they emerge. Such crisis measures include a 24-hour emergency number,  where local authorities can contact FSAI, as well as a memorandum of  understanding between FSAI and all the agencies with food safety  functions on how to coordinate during a crisis. In addition, FSAI is the  national contact for the EU’s rapid alert food safety system.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: According to senior food safety officials, legislative reform of Ireland’s food  safety laws was minor. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998, as  well as establishing FSAI, also transferred authority for enforcement of  existing food legislation and setting food safety and hygiene standards to  FSAI. Although food law in Ireland dates back to the 1800’s, most of  Ireland’s national food legislation today is derived from Ireland’s EU  membership.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: According to officials, in deciding where to place the new food safety  agency within the government, Ireland chose to place it under its existing  Department of Health and Children specifically to separate food safety  responsibilities from food and agriculture promotion efforts, which is the  responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
In addition, food safety agency officials had the overall role of bringing  about the general understanding that the primary responsibility for food  safety rests with the food industry. According to senior officials, FSAI  works with all stakeholders towards this end. Industry stakeholders we  spoke with stated they are now aware that they have such a responsibility.  This change was, in part, due to the FSAI holding open forums with  shellfish farmers, caterers, industry groups, and other stakeholders. The  forums discussed problems and solutions, as well as advocated  partnerships.
section_title: Annual expenditures and number of employees
paragraphs: FSAI officials estimated that FSAI spends 9.4 million euros (about $11.6  million U.S.) on food safety activities annually. Government departments,  such as the Department of Agriculture and Food, still retain responsibility  for policy and legislation and have separate budgets.
In 2004, FSAI had 82 employees.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: According to industry stakeholders, FSAI has been successful in making  the concerns and desires of consumers and retailers on food safety matters  a higher priority than they were before the consolidation and making food  safety a higher priority for industry by fostering open communication.  Industry representatives stated these changes have been positive for  industry. For example, stakeholders also stated that their positive  relationship with FSAI has allowed industry organizations to be informed  about discussions at the EU level and subsequently voice their position to  FSAI on issues discussed at this level. A report published in October 2003  on industry attitudes toward food safety stated that 910 of 1,300 industry  representatives surveyed (70 percent) considered food safer than it had  been 10 years earlier.
A consumer organization stakeholder cited several examples of why  consumers support Ireland’s consolidation of its food safety system. For  example, the official stated that FSAI is a single contact point for  consumers when food safety concerns or questions arise. Moreover, the  official said, the consolidation and creation of FSAI added accountability to  food safety in Ireland, which did not exist before. As a result, said the  official, consumers are more confident in the safety of the food supply, as  well as more aware and knowledgeable about food safety. A report  published in October 2003 on consumers attitudes toward food safety  stated that more than half of 800 adult consumers (53 percent) surveyed  considered food safer than it had been 10 years earlier.
section_title: The Netherlands’ Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: In 2002, the Netherlands moved an inspection office from the health  ministry and an inspection office from the agriculture ministry to its new  food safety agency, the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority.  According to Dutch officials, further consolidation is to occur by January 1,  2006, when the merger of the two inspection offices is to be completed.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: A need to reduce overlap and improve coordination among the Dutch  government’s multiple food safety entities, as well as public concern about  food safety stemming from the dioxin contamination of animal feed, BSE,  and other animal diseases triggered the Netherlands’ decision to  restructure its food safety system. Officials noted that the need to comply  with recently adopted EU legislation also motivated the Netherlands’  consolidation.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before the Netherlands consolidated its food safety agencies in 2002, the  country maintained two food safety inspection offices, each located in a  different ministry. The Inspectorate for Health Protection and Veterinary  Public Health (KvW) was in the Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and  Sports. The National Inspection Service for Livestock and Meat (RVV) was  in the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. According to a  senior food safety official, having food safety responsibilities divided  between two different ministries caused overlap within the Netherlands’  food safety system. For example, both ministries had responsibilities for  inspecting slaughterhouse facilities. Officials stated that communications  between the two inspection agencies needed to be streamlined and  duplication of inspection efforts needed to be reduced.
In 2001, before beginning its 2002 consolidation, the Netherlands tried to  address the problems associated with having two inspection offices by  creating the Netherlands Food Authority, a small team of scientists who  monitored the work of the two inspection offices, KvW and RVV. (See fig.  11 below.) However, according to officials, by 2002, both the Dutch  parliament and consumer organizations wanted more guarantees for food  safety inspections than could be offered by the Netherlands Food  Authority. Therefore, in July 2002, the Netherlands converted the  Netherlands Food Authority into a new food safety agency, the Food and  Consumer Product Safety Authority, and placed both the RVV and KvW  within the new agency. Initially, the Food and Consumer Product Safety  Authority was housed under the Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and  Sports, but in 2003 it was moved to the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and  Food Quality. (See fig. 12 below.) According to officials, moving the new  food safety agency to the agricultural ministry increased its prominence.
According to officials, the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority’s  core responsibilities cover three areas: (1) risk assessment and research— to identify and analyze potential threats to the safety of food and consumer  products; (2) enforcement—to ensure compliance with legislation for  meat, food, and consumer products, which may include nonfood items; and  (3) risk communication—to provide information concerning risk and risk  reduction, based on accurate and reliable data. The agency’s enforcement  responsibilities include food, animal health, and animal welfare  inspections.
Senior food safety officials stated that the Netherlands’ consolidation  efforts are not complete. According to officials, the two inspection offices  will be merged into one by 2006. This single inspection office will consist of  inspectors responsible for inspecting several types of food products. The  Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority has begun training current  inspectors in anticipation of this merger.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: According to an agency document, the Food and Consumer Product Safety  Authority derives its responsibilities from various sources, including the  Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority Organization Decree, dated  July 10, 2002. To accomplish the move of inspection offices, the RVV and  the KvW, within the Netherlands food safety system, officials stated that no  major legal changes or new laws were needed. Only minor revisions in  some laws, such as changing the name of the organization responsible,  were necessary.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: Officials in the Netherlands faced three challenges in changing the  country’s food safety system. First, the government had to decide what  responsibilities and authorities the new food safety agency would have.  Second, as discussed above, the government had to decide which ministry  the new food safety agency would be placed in. The third challenge was an  increase in employee attrition. For example, an official stated that attrition  increased when the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority was  moved from the Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports to the  Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.
section_title: Annual Budget and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to officials, in 2004, the Food and Consumer Product Safety  Authority’s budget was 188 million euros (about $232 million U.S.), and the  agency’s workforce consisted of about 2,700 full-time equivalents. Officials  also told us that the workforce would decrease to about 1,800 full-time  equivalents by January 2006. Among the factors causing this reduction are  the partial privatization of meat inspections and the reorganization and  reduction of administrative and management personnel.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: Representatives of the fruit and vegetable, dairy, and livestock and meat  industries all stated that their operations were not affected by the  consolidation in the Netherlands’ food safety system. However, they all  stated that the change was beneficial for consumers in that it clarified that  the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority was the responsible  agency for food safety functions. The Food and Consumer Product Safety  Authority performed a study of Dutch consumers’ confidence in the safety  of food in 2002 and 2003. The study results show that consumers in both  years had high confidence in food safety. In addition, one industry  representative explained that as a result of moving the two inspection  offices into a single agency, the two offices now have common goals.
section_title: New Zealand’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: The New Zealand Food Safety Authority was established in July 2002.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: According to officials, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA)  was established in July 2002 to improve the effectiveness of New Zealand’s  food safety system by coordinating and harmonizing food safety efforts.  Specifically, New Zealand wanted to address inconsistencies between the  methods used in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s export food  safety program and the Ministry of Health’s domestic food safety program.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before the consolidation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had food  safety responsibilities for agricultural production, meat and dairy  processing, food exports, and registration of agricultural compounds and  veterinary medicines. The Ministry of Health was responsible for  addressing health issues, as well as ensuring the safety of food sold on the  domestic market, including imported food. According to officials, to  address inconsistencies between the two ministries’ food programs, New  Zealand's government consolidated food safety responsibilities of the two  ministries into one semi-autonomous body attached to the Ministry of  Agriculture and Forestry.
NZFSA is now New Zealand’s controlling authority for domestic food safety  and imports and exports of food and food-related products. It is  responsible for administering legislation covering food for sale on the  domestic market; primary processing of animal products and official  assurances related to their export; exports of plant products; food imports;  and the regulation of agricultural compounds, such as pesticides and  fertilizers, as well as veterinary medicines. NZFSA has farm-to-table  responsibilities—from primary production through processing to retailers,  importing, and exporting, as well as responsibility for consumer education.  According to officials, the export program’s purposes are to maintain and  increase exports while providing assurances of food safety and keeping  compliance costs under control. NZFSA’s organization includes a  verification agency, which audits animal product facilities to verify that  exporters are following agreed processes. According to officials, about 280  of NZFSA’s approximately 480 employees are in the verification agency.
In addition, New Zealand and Australia share a trans-Tasman independent  agency established under Australian law, the Food Standards Australia  New Zealand, that develops food standards for composition, labeling, and  contaminants that apply to all foods produced or imported for sale in New  Zealand.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: Officials stated that existing food safety legislation required only very  minor modification to create the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and  authorize it to regulate food safety. However, officials stated that the total  domestic food regulatory program is currently under review, and it was  expected that quite extensive change would be needed as an outcome of  this review. Legislative change is expected in late fiscal year 2005-2006.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: According to officials, adjustment to a new organizational culture was  somewhat challenging for some employees. They said some employees  from the larger organizations, particularly employees from the Ministry of  Health, had difficulty assimilating into the culture of the new agency.  Approximately 100 employees moved from the Ministry of Agriculture and  Forestry, and 12 staff moved from the Ministry of Health into the new food  safety agency. A second challenge for officials was deciding where within  the government the agency would be located. NZFSA was established as a  semi-autonomous body attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and  Forestry. According to officials, its semi-autonomous status is intended to  provide a level of separation from producers sought by the New Zealand  public. In addition, the government had to decide whether to move certain  food-related responsibilities to the new agency. For example, responsibility  for human nutrition was kept at the Ministry of Health.
section_title: Annual Budget and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to officials, NZFSA’s budget for the fiscal year that ended June  30, 2004, was approximately $78 million New Zealand (about $53 million  U.S.). A portion of NZFSA’s spending is financed by user fees assessed on  industry for a range of regulator-provided services, including export  certification, export audit arrangements, and market access efforts.  Officials stated that NZFSA had approximately 480 employees in 2004.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: According to a consumer organization representative, before the creation  of NZFSA, consumers were dissatisfied with the low priority both  ministries placed on food safety. According to this representative,  consumer organizations advocated changes in the food safety system,  including the creation of a single agency dedicated to food safety.
In 2003, about one year after its creation, NZFSA commissioned a study  conducted by an independent research organization to provide benchmark  information on food safety issues among New Zealand’s general public. The  study revealed that a majority of respondents considered food safety  standards to be improving, although concerns remain about specific foods,  such as chicken; food outlets; and other food-related issues, including  salmonella. Only one-third of the survey’s respondents stated that they  were confident in the level of monitoring and enforcement of food safety  standards. Despite these concerns, officials of a consumer organization  stated that the creation of NZFSA was a very positive step that was strongly  supported by consumers, and that the agency was too new for consumer  confidence levels to have significantly increased at the time of the survey.
An official representing a food industry organization in New Zealand stated  that the organization, along with others, had advocated the establishment  of a single food safety agency for years. The official stated the previous  system was piecemeal and inefficient, due to coordination problems  associated with two ministries having food safety responsibilities and  neither ministry placing a high priority on food safety. As a result of the  establishment of NZFSA, the industry is more confident in how the nation  handles food safety. One official stated that as a result of the consolidation,  the use of available resources for food safety activities is more efficient  because food safety resources are located in one agency instead of  fragmented between two ministries. In addition, the official stated that  consumer confidence levels have improved due to an increase in the  government’s responsiveness to food safety crises. According to the  official, NZFSA has a responsive network that quickly delivers information  to notify the public of food safety issues. Finally, the official stated that  NZFSA has significantly improved transparency and remains committed to  ongoing discussions with its many stakeholder groups. For example, in  responding to reports of increased iodine levels in children, NZFSA began  discussions immediately with endocrinologists, other doctors, and with  food industry representatives to address the issue.
section_title: The United Kingdom’s Food Safety System Consolidation
paragraphs: In 1999, the Queen, by and with the consent of Parliament, enacted  legislation to establish the independent Food Standards Agency, which  went into effect on April 1, 2000.
subsections: section_title: Reasons for Consolidating Food Safety Responsibilities
paragraphs: Officials stated that the United Kingdom consolidated its food safety  system due to a loss of public confidence in food safety, which largely  resulted from the government’s perceived mishandling of BSE. By early  1999, the human form of BSE, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, had  caused 35 deaths. It was widely perceived that the fragmented and  decentralized food safety system allowed this outbreak to occur. According  to a consumer organization representative, consumers believed that the  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food—which had dual  responsibilities to promote the agricultural and food industry as well as to  regulate food safety—favored industry over consumers in making  decisions related to food safety.
section_title: Responsibilities and Structure Before and After Consolidation
paragraphs: Before the reorganization of the United Kingdom’s food safety system in  2000, food safety responsibilities were divided among several central  government departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,  and Food and the Department of Health, as well as local authorities. The  Meat Hygiene Service, a subunit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,  and Food was responsible for meat inspections, including enforcing  hygiene in slaughterhouses. Other food inspections, conducted by local  authorities, received no oversight from the central government.
In 1999, to address public concerns, the Parliament passed the Food  Standards Act of 1999 to establish the independent Food Standards Agency  (FSA) as the country’s lead food safety agency. Officials stated that the core  groups of employees that started with FSA were from the Ministry of  Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food and the Department of Health. The Meat  Hygiene Service was moved out of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,  and Food and placed within FSA. In addition, FSA was granted audit  authority over local enforcement.
According to officials, FSA is responsible for scientific risk assessments,  risk management, standard setting, education, and public outreach. In  addition, its subunit, the Meat Hygiene Service, is responsible for meat  inspections. For other foods, FSA forms inspection policy and audits local  inspection authorities. Fruit, crops, and animal feed are also within its  jurisdiction. FSA has no agricultural or food promotion responsibilities.
FSA has the powers of an agency in a ministry, but is not part of a ministry.  However, according to officials, the agency is held accountable to the  Westminster Parliament and devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales,  and Northern Ireland through Health Ministers.
An independent Board that consists of a Chairman, a Deputy Chair, and up  to 12 other members appointed to act collectively in the public interest,  manage the FSA. The Board’s Chairman, who is appointed by the Secretary  of State for Health; Scottish Ministers; the National Assembly for Wales;  and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in  Northern Ireland, determines food policy and holds discussions on policy  issues in public meetings.
section_title: Legislation
paragraphs: The Food Standards Act of 1999 established the FSA. It classifies the FSA  as an independent nonministerial government department and defines the  agency’s functions and powers, including its function to monitor and audit  the performance of local authorities and where necessary to exercise  reserve powers over local authorities.
section_title: Challenges
paragraphs: The United Kingdom’s main challenge in consolidating was deciding which  responsibilities to place in the new food safety agency. The government had  to decide whether to (1) separate or combine food safety and nutrition, (2)  include the Meat Hygiene Service within the new agency, and (3) include  nonmeat inspections as a responsibility of the new agency or to sustain that  authority with the local governments. Decisions on these issues were made  after several debates in Parliament and considerable discussion among  government officials and stakeholders from the food industry and  consumer organizations.
An additional challenge cited by FSA officials was to avoid duplication of  efforts during the establishment of FSA and the termination of the Ministry  of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. To address this challenge, a joint  interim group was created to help reduce such duplication of efforts.
section_title: Annual Budget and Number of Employees
paragraphs: According to officials, FSA’s annual budget is approximately 130 million  pounds sterling (about $220 million U.S.); most of that amount is allocated  for meat inspections. The food industry pays FSA about 30 million pounds  sterling (about $51 million U.S.) annually in user fees for inspections.
Officials stated that FSA’s workforce consists of approximately 3,000  employees.
section_title: Stakeholder Reaction
paragraphs: A consumer stakeholder stated that the establishment of FSA was an  improvement to the food safety system because the agency has made the  system more open and transparent than it was before the consolidation.  Surveys of consumer attitudes on particular areas of the food safety system  have been conducted, but no survey has been conducted to measure the  confidence level of consumers for the entire food safety system. For  example, this stakeholder stated that surveys conducted by a consumer  association concluded that meat is still a concern for consumers, but the  association has not conducted a survey to determine confidence levels over  the entire food chain. The same consumer stakeholder also stated that FSA  has increased public education about food safety.
Industry stakeholders agreed that the establishment of a single,  independent food safety agency has increased consumer confidence. A  stakeholder stated that the most significant result of the consolidation was  a shift from an industry focus to a consumer focus on food safety matters.  Stakeholders also said transparency regarding the government’s oversight  of food safety matters has greatly increased. In addition, one stakeholder  noted that the consolidation resulted in increased accountability within the  food safety system. However, industry stakeholders cited dissatisfaction  with the new agency’s reporting on the testing of food products. One  stakeholder stated that FSA collects product samples, tests them, and  reports results without consulting companies. Another stated that the  agency comments on food product studies before they are actually  completed.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, major contributors to this report were  Lawrence J. Dyckman and Kelli Ann Walther. Nancy Crothers, Barbara El  Osta, Michele Fejfar, and Amy Webbink also made key contributions to this  report.