Date: 1990-10-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. my colleagues. we have in part debated this issue during the consideration of the rule. but just let me say that as the Members heard earlier today. the time has come for this Nation to put In place a comprehensive mandatory Federal inspection program for fish and shellfish. Today Americans are eating more fish and seafood than ever before. but guess what. nationwide. the chances are that most of the seafood. most of the shellfish. and most of the establishments that handle and process this catch are .rarely ever inspected by a Federal agency. There are some State agencies that do so. The reason why Is simple. Fish and seafood are the only flesh foods not subject to a comprehensive mandatory Federal inspection program. Madam Chairman. in an era of heightened concern about food safety. we must do better. We can no longer allow jurisdictional squabbles beween the committees of Congress and among Federal agencies to keep us from having a mandatory food Inspection program. For at least 10 years one committee or another in the House and in the Senate have looked at the safety question. For a variety of reasons sparked by industry opposition and the complexity of implementing a workable inspection program. but most Importantly because of turf battles between committees of Congress and Federal agencies. nothing has been done. Today we can show the American people leadership. Today we can show the American people that public health and safety come before insidethebeltway battles. Food safety is on everybodys mind today. It is on the minds of consumers who question the effectiveness of Government inspection efforts In the wake of recent food safety scares. It is on the minds of the fishing and seafood industries which want to provide consumers with a level of assurance they deserve. Some people. such as former FDA Commissioner Frank Young. have told us that seafood safety is not a big enough problem to worry about. About a year ago. Commissioner Young said. "I believe the current negative perception in consumers" minds is not warranted when the health risks of seafood are compared with other sources." This chart drawn from data gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows you the number of disease outbreaks per billion. and you can see that 18 as compared to poultry. 1.1 pork. 1.1. and beef. 0.7. Members will hear later numbers. yes. the numbers are higher. because there Is more consumption of beef and poultry. so the numbers of persons being sick will be higher. but the perHl11695 centages. which is what we have to deal with here today. because that is where the perception comes from. and in this city and in the country. perception becomes reality. This chart that we are using here. disease outbreaks by vehicle. again. we have the seafood which is the highest one all the way to eggs at the bottom. We have recently been hearing more about eggs. Then the other chart is a comparison of seafoodrelated illnesses. and the red is the finfish. so you are going to hear that only the shellfish are the problem. No. that is not so. We need to go across the board and see that all of the shellfish and finfish are inspected. When we say finfish. that means every fish that has fins. and this I think should be documented. because there will be confusion between shellfish and finfish. I do not know where crawfish come in. We will have to have our friends from Louisiana decide for that one where the crawfish comes in. I guess it is an Acadian molluscan. and that is what probably it will be. But lack of a Federal seafood inspection program also leaves our domestic fish and seafood products industry at a competitive disadvantage. This is why this industry wants it. They do not want to be at a disadvantage. The United States is one of a few countries engaged in major fish and seafood commerce that does not have a national inspection program. Let me also say. and I would hope that this would change. 60 percent of all of the seafood coming in is from abroad. and we do not know how or if they are inspected abroad. We have a provision in the meat and poultry that the plant in the other country has to meet the standards of our inspection. of our plants here. and this is something that I think should be of importance to us and of concern. that 60 percent of the food comes from outside this country. Certainly the consumer interest and our best interest demands that there be a mandatory inspection. Let me just say that there will be differences. but let me have now chart 5. which is the estimated resources for food safety. and the blue is where the USDA is. These are people on hand. The red is where the FDA is. and these are people on hand. So people talking about budget and implications. whichever way you go. you are going to have to have more inspections. but the fact is that you have on hand a quantity of inspectors at this time. Again. let me repeat. people demand that we need to be responsible. The Ag Committee version takes the normal natural step. USDA. the Department of Agriculture. already inspects meat and poultry. We have now shellfish. and all seafood. The Food and Drug sets the standards. We say. "You have the expertise. you set the standards." The Commerce Department handles the waters. contaminated waters. opening and closing. so from our perspective this is not a turf battle. This is not a USDA versus the world or anything of that sort. This is where we legitimately and logically through a thought process worked out how we can best handle the situation. The establishments are inadequate handling now. the establishments that process or serve. process or move the seafood. So I would hope that you would listen to the debate and then in the end now. we have already adopted a rule. but let me say again. because there would be some mention. The Mitchell bill is about 95 percent of the bill that I introduced. We held hearings. We have been holding hearings on this issue since the gentleman from North Dakota introduced legislation 5 or 6 years ago. So the process is now. the time element that we have been assured that if. the Mitchell bill is picked up and a whistleblower provision is added. that he would accept this bill. and we are off to the President for signature. Otherwise. we do not have time for a conference. We only have. hopefully. but a few hours. We do not have time for three committees to go and have all the time necessary for conference. So it is not like this bill has not been studied. It has. but the easiest. most feasible. the proper legislative way to do. because legislation is the art of the possible. What is possible that day. that hour. that minute. That is what is possible today. We are going to argue all over the place. but that is the legislative need of today. that we do the most feasible thing and pick up this bill which is very similar. Now. the request for whistleblower came form the Senate. and we took from the Clean Air Act. existing law for whistleblower. I think this would satisfy and certainly with great pride that we said we took what has been worked out by the distinguished members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the area of the Clean Air Act. and we thought that that would be proper and adequate whistleblower. There is now a version that has much more reach. I do not have any problem with. but my problem is. are we going to have seafood inspection mandatory by Federal Government? Yes or no. The odds are no If we go the other way. Yes. if we take the Mitchell bill. Madam Chairmdn. the time has come for this Nation to put In place a comprehensive. mandatory Federal inspection program for fish and shellfish. Today Americans are eating more fish and seafood than ever before. But guess what. Nationwide the chances are that most of -the seafood. most of the shellfish. and most of the establishmentsthat handle and process this catch are rarely ever inspected by a Federal agency. The reason why is simple. Fish and seafoods are the only flesh foods not subject to a comprehensive. mandatory Federal inspection program. Madam Chairman. in an era of heightened public concern about food safety. we must do better. We can no longer allow jurisdictional squabbles between the committees of Congress and among the Federal agencies to keep us from having a mandatory Federal seafood inspection program. For at least 10 years. one committee or anotherin the House and in the Senatehave looked at the seafood safety question. For a variety of reasonssparse data. industry opposition. and the complexity of implementing a workable inspection program. but most importantly. because of turf battles between committees of Congress and Federal agenciesnothing has been done. Today we can show the American people leadership. Today we can show the American people that public health and safety come before insidetheBeltway turf battles. Food safety is on everybodys mind these days. Its. on. the minds of consumers who question the effectiveness of Government inspection efforts in the wake of recent food safety scares. And its on the minds of the fishing and seafood industries which want to provide consumers with the level of assurance they deserve. Some people. such as former FDA Commissioner Frank Young. have told us that seafood safety is not a big enough problem to worry about. About a year ago Commissioner Young said: I believe the current negative perception in consumers minds is not warranted when the health risks of seafood are compared with other food sources. Data gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and the -U.S. Department of Agriculture shows you the number of disease outbreaks per billion pounds of product consumed. Beef. pork. and poultry all have around onejust onereported disease outbreak for every 1 billion pounds of meat eaten. Fish and shellfish. by contrast. have 18 times as many outbreaks of disease. Beef. pork. and poultry are all inspected by USDA. Fish and shellfish are not. White House Chief of Staff Sununu and FDA officials will tell you that shellfish safety is the only problem. Govemor Sununu in a letter sent to me in May of this year said that: "the clearest health risk from seafood involves the consumption of raw molluskan shellfish." But the data says otherwise. Over a 15year periodfrom 1973 to 1987finfish actually accounted for 15 percent of foodborne disease outbreaks. Madam Chairman. the data collected by Government agencies simply doesnt back him up. Sununu may know budgets. but he doesnt know seafood safety. Some Members may think seafood or fish safety is not a big deal to their constituents unless theyre from a coastal State. :However. States like Missouri. Minnesota Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. and. New York. have Hl11696 had fish or. shellfish consumption restricted because their waterbodies are closed or under advisories restricting consumption of their fish and shellfish. Eight States--including New York and Californiahave had morethan 10 water bodies in this category. . What is the reason for these water closures? Chemical contaminationfrom metals like lead and mercury. from..industrial toxics like PCBs. and from pesticides. that are already banned in the United States like chlordane and DDT. These chemicals are dangerous. They accumulate in the flesh of the fish and in the bodies of the shellfish as they feed on the waters bottom. Only testing the waters or testing the fish can detect these. dangerous chemicals. But only a small percentage of the fish is ever inspected. Food safety concerns are having -an impact on the seafood and fish products industry. After nearly 30 years of slow but steady growth in consumption of seafood and fish products. the industry now finds sales stagnating. Lack of a Federal seafood inspection program also leaves our domestic fish and seafood products industry at a competitive disadvantage.. The United States is one of the few countries engaged in major fish and seafood commerce that doesnt have a national inspection program. Major seafood trading countries such as Canada. Norway. Iceland. and New Zealand already have such programs.Madam Chairman. a mandatory Federal inspection program for fish and shellfish is supported. by a broad coalition of consumer groups. food groups. .and the seafood industry. � " Let me name just a few in this coalition: American Council on Consumer Awareness. Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. Association of Massachusetts Consumers. Empire State Consumer Association. American Seafood Institute. Consumer Action (San Francisco). National Aquaculture Association. Boston Fisheries Association. Georgia Consumer Center. National RestaurantAssociation. General Mills. Inc.. owner of Red Lobster Seafood Restaurants. . S. 2924. the Fish Safety Act. is supported by these groups because it would establish a seafood inspection program todayone that can begin to better protect American consumers than the current patchwork of programs. They dont want hollow promises from the White House. They dont. want more studies. They want to provide Americans with the assurance of safety and wholesomeness they deserve. S. 2924 has already passed the Senate. It alone provides us with the opportunity to make seafood inspection a reality this year. The single most important reason to vote for S. 2924 is that it allows us. to use the expertise of three agencies� which share an interest in protecting public health and ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of fish and seafood products.--- ... .... � First. S. 2924 provides USDA withthe aut.ority to inspect all seafood produced In the United States. as well asthat from abroad. This is critical because 60 percent of the seafood Americans consume is imported from abroad.. Second. it keeps the Food and Drug Administration in chargeas it should beof setting limits for chemical and microbiological contaminants. And third. it continues the Commerce Departments authority to monitor harvesting and growing waters and to limit or restrict fishing. if necessary. Madam Chairman. the Department of Agriculture is the bestequipped agency to do the inspection job we need to do. It has the personnel and it has the expertise that comes from more than 80 years of food safety activities. Let no one kid you. implementation of a comprehensive seafood inspection program -wont be easy. It will require money and it will require personnel. Some disagee. Governor Sununu. in his letter to me in May. said: The public health interests of the Nation would best be served by a modest but welltargeted expansion of the programs operated by FDA and NMFS. Lets compare the resources of USDA and FDA. The Department of Agriculture has a field staff of 7.600 food safety inspectors. Add to .that USDA food scientists. you have a total of 9.400 fulltime equivalent positions engaged in food safety activities. By contrast. FDA has only 2.000 fulltime. equivalent positions. FDA simply does not -have the personnel to do the job. In fact. according to GAO. FDA is severely understaffed to fulfill itscurrent responsibilities. Under its current authority. FDA does inspect seafood plants. But its unlikely an inspector will walk through a plants doors more than once every 4 years. This fact becomes even more apparent when one looks at the intensity of food inspections by the two agencies. USDA has 7.600 fulltime equivalent inspectors for 6.900 plants. FDA has only 500 fulltime equivalent inspectors for 67.000 plants around the country. Madam Chairman. USDA is the best choice as the lead inspection agency becausei it has the experienceand the manpowerto carryout a comprehensive mandatory meattype inspection program. There has been some concern expressed that S. 2924 as passed by the Senate did not have a whistleblower protection clause. The legislation now before us remediesthat problem. Now that the House has approved the rule and its selfexecuting provision. S. 2924 contains an effective whistleblower protection clauseone that is in current law. In fact. its the same whistleblower clause in the current Clean Air Act which our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee developed. Madam Chairman. the 101st Congress will end soon. We have had the hearings. We have heardfrom all the outside groups. We have had the markups. S. 2924 takes the best of all the proposals and makes the best use of our available resources. Failure to pass S.-2924 leaves Federal seafood inspection dead in the water. Lets give the President an opportunity. to sign Federal seafood inspection legislation into law this year. Vote against the Dingell/Studds substitute and ote for the Fish Safety Act of 1990. :. - H11697 Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.