At the Intersection of Health, Health Care and Policy

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
available at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/5/915

For Reprints, Links &

Permissions :
http://content.healthaffairs.org/1340_reprints.php
Email Alertings : http://content.healthaffairs.org/subscriptions/etoc.dtl
To Subscribe :

https://fulfillment.healthaffairs.org

Health Affairs is published monthly by Project HOPE at 7500 Old Georgetown Road,
Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814-6133. Copyright
by Project HOPE - The People-to-People Health Foundation. As provided by United
States copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), no part of
may be reproduced, displayed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying or by information storage or retrieval systems,
without prior written permission from the Publisher. All rights reserved.

Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

Cite this article as:

Erik D. Olson
Protecting Food Safety: More Needs To Be Done To Keep Pace With Scientific
Advances And The Changing Food Supply
Health Affairs 30, no.5 (2011):915-923
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1265

Food Safety
By Erik D. Olson
10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1265
HEALTH AFFAIRS 30,
NO. 5 (2011): 915923
2011 Project HOPE
The People-to-People Health
Foundation, Inc.

doi:

Foodborne illness and the health risks from chemicals in food

are a concern. However, food safety statutes largely unchanged for more
than forty years are failing to keep pace with scientific advances and the
changing food supply. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, enacted
in January 2011, is intended to help reduce foodborne illness by
establishing new prevention measures for food regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration. Additional funding is needed so that the agency
has enough resources to help realize the laws potential. Furthermore,
key food safety issues untouched by the 2011 statute, including
restrictions on antibiotic use in animal agriculture, laws governing meat
and poultry safety, and requirements governing the use of chemicals in
food, should be reviewed and updated as necessaryusing up-to-date
scienceto tighten the focus on preventing disease.
ABSTRACT

n general, the United States appears to

enjoy a safe food supply. However, according to the most recent estimates
from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), each year more
than forty-seven million Americans suffer from
foodborne illnesses caused by pathogensdisease-causing microbes such as bacteria or viruses. These illnesses annually send more than
127,000 people to the hospital and kill approximately 3,000.1,2 In addition, according to CDC
estimates, about 23 percent of those who are
stricken with the illnessesapproximately one
million Americanswill suffer from long-term
chronic complications. These complications, referred to as sequelae, include reactive arthritis,
autoimmune thyroid disease, kidney disease,
neural and neuromuscular dysfunctions, and
heart and vascular disease.3
In addition to these pathogen-related illnesses
attributable to food production, processing,
handling, or preparation, there are other risks
posed by chemicals that are added, intentionally
or not, to the food supply. Often these chemical

Erik D. Olson (EOlson@

pewtrusts.org) is a deputy
director of the Pew Health
Group, overseeing food
programs, at the Pew
Charitable Trusts, in
Washington, D.C.

hazards are less well characterized than the

microbiological risks, which have been studied
for decades.
For example, scientists at the CDC and elsewhere have noted that the excessive sodium and
artificial trans fats added to food may be contributing to the nations burden of cardiovascular
disease.47 Additionally, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and other experts have
expressed concerns about chemicals that can
be found in certain food as a result of environmental exposure, such as mercury in fish,8 or
about chemical compounds used during food
production.
A landmark 1993 National Research Council
study9 and subsequent published investigations10 have highlighted the health risks posed
by pesticides in food, particularly to children.
Moreover, some studies suggest that chemicals
leaching from food packaging may be linked to
reproductive or other potential harms but precise estimates of any health impacts of these
chemicals on the population are unavailable.1115

May 2 011

3 0:5

H e a lt h A f fai r s

915

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

Protecting Food Safety: More

Needs To Be Done To Keep Pace
With Scientific Advances And
The Changing Food Supply

Food Safety
Overview Of The US Food Safety
Regulatory System

Chemicals In Food
Foodborne Illness From Pathogens
Studies have estimated the annual costs of foodborne illness from pathogens at between
$152 billion for health-related costs only19 and
$1.4 trillion for broader societal costs.20
The sources of foodborne microbes are manifold. Some are introduced into food by the inappropriate application of animal manure, or
916

Health A ffairs

May 2 011

30:5

Recent changes in the food supply of the United

States have ensured the availability of plentiful
food, including year-round access to fresh fruits
and vegetables, in addition to a variety of other
food in supermarkets not envisioned only a few
decades ago. In spite of increased access to fresh
produce, the US consumption of packaged food
is higher than that of every other country in the
world.38 Many processed foods contain additives

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

The regulatory system for food safety in the

United States, sometimes called a patchwork
structure,16 dates back to 1906, when President
Theodore Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and
Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, the countrys original food safety laws. They had been
triggered by the publication in the same year
of Upton Sinclairs The Jungle, which revealed
in detail the unsanitary conditions in the meatpacking industry.
The US food safety system today is primarily
divided between the FDA and the Department of
Agriculture, with some assistance from other
agencies.17 The FDA regulates about 80 percent
of the food supply, principally under the food
safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The Agriculture Department oversees the remaining 20 percent of
the food supplyessentially poultry and meat
under laws that have remained largely unchanged since the passage of the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 and the Wholesome
Meat Act of 1967.
As discussed below, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 overhauled and improved
the agencys regulatory authorities to address
microbiological and certain chemical risks from
all foods other than meat and poultry. The new
law builds upon Section 402 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which charges
the FDA with preventing adulterated foods
defined as foods that contain poisonous, insanitary, or deleterious ingredients that may render
them injurious to health from reaching consumers.
In 1958 the FDA received specific authority to
regulate chemicals added to food, under that
years amendments to the food and drug statute.18 With limited exceptions, these provisions
have remained unchanged. The most important
update to them came in 1996, when Congress
enacted the Food Quality Protection Act. This
act gave the Environmental Protection Agency
updated and strengthened responsibilities for
establishing maximum allowable levels of pesticides in food, called pesticide tolerances.
These levels are enforced by the FDA.

the use for irrigation of water contaminated by

upstream feedlots or other sources of manure,
on fields growing produce for human consumption.2123
Animals that are slaughtered may carry pathogens on their hides or in their guts that can
contaminate meat products during slaughter
or processing.24 Results of independent testing
published in 2007 found that more than 80 percent of whole chickens available in grocery
stores, for example, carry Salmonella or Campylobacter.25 Earlier government data show that a
sizable proportion of raw ground turkey and
ground beef contains potentially pathogenic bacteria.26,27 Consumption of or handling such contaminated meat and poultry can cause foodborne
illness.28
Adding to the problem is the heavy nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal agriculture
that is, antibiotic use to promote the animals
growth or prevent disease, not to treat clinically
ill animals with curative doses. Such practices
carry the potential to breed antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, which can cause human illnesses that
do not respond to the most commonly used antibiotics.29 FDA data show that nearly twenty-nine
million pounds of antimicrobial active ingredients were sold for use in food-producing animals in 2009.30 Because the agency does not
publicly track comparable data for human use,
it is not possible to reliably determine the precise
percentage of antibiotics used for food animals.
However, estimates are that 3070 percent of all
antibiotics in the United States are used nontherapeutically in animal agriculture.31,32
The CDC, FDA, Department of Agriculture,
World Health Organization, and others have
noted the link between the use of nontherapeutic
antibiotics in animal agriculture and antibioticresistant pathogens that can impair the usefulness of antibiotics used to treat human
disease.3336 Some representatives of the meat
and poultry industry, however, contend that
the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans
is overwhelmingly an issue related to human
antibiotic use, rather than the use of antibiotics
in food animals.37

The FDA Food Safety Modernization

Act
During the years since the enactment of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938,
many shortcomings in the act and its implementation became clear. The act did not give the FDA

authority to recall contaminated food, nor was

there clear direction to the agency about the
frequency of inspection of domestic foodprocessing facilities or imported food. In recent
years the FDA has inspected food facilities on
average only once a decade and has checked only
about 1 percent of imported food.5355
In light of these and other widely recognized
deficiencies, in December 2010 Congress passed
the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which
President Barack Obama signed into law on
January 4, 2011. This landmark law is the first
major overhaul and update of the FDAs authorities regarding foodborne illness in more than
seventy years. The act moves from the old approach of primarily reacting to adulterated food
to a prevention-based system designed to stop
contaminated food from reaching consumers.
Sections 103 and 104 of the new statute require
food-processing companies to identify where
during food production contamination might
occur, to take steps to prevent it, and to monitor
the effectiveness of those steps. This preventive
control approach is modeled after the Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points system,
which the FDA has used to address seafood
and juice safety in recent years.56 Section 201
requires more frequent inspections of foreign
facilities, and it establishes a minimum frequency for FDA inspections of domestic foodprocessing facilities based on their risk of contamination.
Sections 301308 impose several requirements on imported food to ensure that it meets
the same safety standards as food produced in
the United States. And section 105 charges the
FDA with establishing science-based standards
for safe agricultural production of the fruit and
vegetables that pose the highest risk of contamination. The preventive control and produce
safety provisions relieve small businesses
(growers and processors who sell their products
within a limited geographic area) of any undue
burdens they would face because of their size.
Sections 205 and 209 require improved coordination among federal, state, and local governments, giving the states a potentially larger
role in inspecting food facilities and in enforcing
the law. The 2011 law authorizes the FDA to enter
into agreements with states and localities to inspect and investigate food, and to train their
staffs to inspect and investigate food facilities
in cooperation with the federal agency, subject
to certain conditions. Sections 205 and 209 also
authorize federal grants to build state and local
capacity for foodborne illness surveillance, detection, testing, and response.
Another important change is that section 206
gives the FDA mandatory recall authority for
M ay 2 0 1 1

30:5

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

used in processing and preservation, or to improve flavor, texture, appearance, or shelf life.
Some of these compounds are benign, but
others might not be. For example, high levels
of added sodium from salt or artificial trans fats
might not be as safe as once thought.47 Other
additives have also raised worries, albeit perhaps
not of the same magnitude. Some scientists have
raised safety concerns, for example, about the
use of certain plastics in containers that can result in the leaching into food of chemicals such as
bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, or phthalates, substances that make plastics more flexible. The use of these plastics has triggered extensive debate. Some academic and government
scientists question the safety of these substances, and other scientists in government agencies
and the chemical industry maintain that these
chemicals are safe as currently used.1115,3943
Environmental contaminants can also get into
food. For example, mercury is released into the
atmosphere from the burning of coal in power
plants.44 Mercury also comes from chloralkali
chemical plants, which produce chlorine and
caustic soda through a chemical process that
uses large amounts of mercury and can release
mercury vapor or liquid into the environment.45,46 It is also released through other human
activities and natural sources.47,48 The mercury
settles into water, where it tends to become concentrated as it moves up the food chaina process called bioconcentration. This means that
larger predatory fish such as tuna can contain
hundreds or thousands of times higher concentrations of mercury than occur in the water in
which they swim.48,49 For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA have
issued joint advisories warning consumersin
particular, vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and young childrento avoid eating large quantities of certain fish, including
shark, swordfish, and tilefish.50
Another class of chemicals, pesticides, are
often found in food. They can adhere to or be
absorbed by plants and animals through direct
application of the pesticide or from environmental contamination. Surveys have found that
pesticides generally occur at low levels in
food, although their concentrations in domestic and imported food have sometimes raised
concerns.10,51,52

Health Affa irs

917

Food Safety

FDA Oversight Of Food Additives

A series of congressional hearings and reports
during the 1950s raised concerns over the addition of cancer-causing and other chemicals to the
US food supply. Rep. James J. Delaney (D-NY)
led the effort to adopt the 1958 Food Additives
Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.57 One part of the amendment, known as
the Delaney Clause, said that no chemical additive could be considered safe if it was found to
cause cancer in humans or animals. Other additives can be classified as generally recognized as
safe. Companies may use such substances without notifying anyoneincluding the FDAbecause of this exemption. And they may rely on
FDA regulations that identify substances in this
category.
Under the amendment, substances that have
been categorized as generally recognized as
safe, as well as other compounds added to food,
must meet the legal definition of safe. The FDA
construes this term to mean there must be a
reasonable certainty of no harm from the
chemicals use. This phrases interpretation
has evolved through decades of agency practice,
tracing back to the legislative history of the 1958
amendment.58
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 allowed companies to use a
918

H ea lt h A f fai r s

M ay 2 0 1 1

30:5

streamlined approval process for food contact

substances, the chemicals used in packaging or
equipment that can get into food. Other legislation over the years created alternative systems to
regulate color additives, dietary supplements,
and drugs for animals, and exempted them from
the regulations for food additives.59 Traditionally, the FDA oversight of food additives has
made avoiding acute toxicity a higher priority
than longer-term chronic health impacts such
as cardiovascular disease or obesity. This approach has allowed the use of some substances
that scientists at the CDC and elsewhere believe
may contribute to widespread morbidity and
mortality, such as sodium and added saturated
and artificial trans fats,47 to remain in the food
supply and be categorized as generally recognized as safe.
In February 2010 Congresss investigative
arm, the Government Accountability Office,
completed a detailed investigation into the
FDAs regulation of food additives.60 The report
concluded that the FDAs oversight process
does not help ensure the safety of all new [generally recognized as safe] determinations. The
investigators noted that the FDA reviews only
those determinations of safety that companies
submit voluntarily to the agency. It generally
lacks information about companies determinations of safety that are not submitted to the FDA,
which means that substances the agency would
not consider safe may be added to food. The
report also concluded that the FDA could do
more to ensure the safety of additives in those
cases where it has not received a determination.
Certain other important concerns have been
raised by academic scientists about the FDAs
oversight of food additives. Among them are reservations about the agencys primary reliance on
industry-sponsored toxicity studies. The FDA
generally appears to rely primarily on these studies rather than on investigations performed by
academic scientists published in peer-reviewed
journals.61 This may stem from the agencys apparent preference for studies completed using
FDA-approved or standardized protocols and
laboratory practices.
This issue has recently come to a head with the
case of bisphenol A. Industry studies using standard testing protocols showed no significant
problems with the use of bisphenol A, but published academic studies raised health concerns,
though there is some controversy over whether
those studies are sufficient to warrant regulatory
action.1115,3942,61

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

food. This new authority will mean that the

agency has greater leverage to encourage swifter
and more comprehensive voluntary recalls of
food that is adulterated (or for which there is a
reasonable probability that it is adulterated) because the FDA will now be able to order a recall if
a company refuses to cooperate. And section 204
establishes pilot projects that will take the first
steps toward requiring that foods be traceable all
the way back to their origin.Within two years, the
FDA is to propose rules for facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold high-risk food, to
enhance their record-keeping requirements to
help trace potential adulteration.
The FDA will require additional funding to
ensure that it has the technical and personnel
resources to carry out the acts provisions. If its
new authorities are fully funded and implemented, the FDA should be able to greatly reduce
the burden of foodborne illness caused by pathogens. Contaminated food should be less likely to
be produced domestically because of increased
prevention measures and improved standards
for industry, and less likely to be imported because of stronger rules for inspection and certification. In addition, the new prevention and inspection provisions make it less likely that any
contaminated food will reach consumers.

Pesticides In Food And The Food

Quality Protection Act

Global Food Safety Standards

There are ongoing efforts to harmonize US standards for food additives and other chemicals in
food with the standards maintained by other nations, led by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World
Health Organization (WHO). For example, these
organizations set up the Codex Alimentarius
Commissiongenerally known as Codex
which is an organization consisting of representatives of 180 national governments (representatives of industry and nongovernmental organizations can serve as observers). Codex reviews
and publishes technical information and recommends food standards, guidelines, and codes of
practice.65
A related effort, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives, provides advice to
Codex and governments around the world to
help synchronize food additive regulations globally.66 Codex and this committee establish standards or safe levels for contaminants in food and
for food additives, which then may be adopted by
member nations and industry.

The Need For Additional Reforms

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011
and the pesticide residue provisions in the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 have addressed
some of the more serious risks posed by contam-

May 2 011

30:5

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

Numerous studies have documented the apparent risks from pesticides in the food supply, including the landmark 1993 National Research
Council report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children.9 In the wake of these studies,
Congress overhauled the provisions governing
pesticide residues. Section 408 of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 established a strict,
health-based standard of reasonable certainty
of no harm to any infant or child. It required
the Environmental Protection Agency to use this
standard to review the safety of all of the 9,721
pesticide tolerancesthe maximum allowable
level of a pesticide on a foodwithin ten years, a
task that the agency largely completed by the
deadline of August 2006.62
The agency recommended the revocation of
3,200 of these tolerances and the modification
of 1,200 others, based on safety concerns and
voluntary withdrawalssome of which had been
triggered by concerns voiced by the agency.60,63,64
As noted above, the FDA is responsible for
enforcing the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

inants in food. The newly enacted food safety law

will not fulfill its promise, however, if the FDA
lacks the resources to carry out its new responsibilities, such as conducting more frequent inspections and developing and implementing
new, science-based standards to prevent contamination. Section 743 of the House version
of the food safety legislation, which did not make
it into the final act, would have established a
registration fee for each food facility, to help
fund the FDAs activities.67 Congress should consider establishing a similar fee through another
appropriate act, to ensure that the FDA has a
stable source of funding for its food safety
programs.
In addition, some of the stronger authorities
that were approved by the House but not included in the final act remain unfinished business that may limit the FDAs success. For example, section 135 would have strengthened the
FDAs civil penaltiesessentially, fines that
can be imposed directly by the agency, would
have improved its deterrence efforts, and would
have made it easier for the agency to punish
companies that fail to comply with its regulations. When the FDA cannot use civil penalties
in order to impose fines, it must expend additional resources and time to file a lawsuit.
Similarly, section 102 of the House bill included more-aggressive testing requirements
for pathogens. Food companies would have
had to conduct more widespread testing of products and facilities and report the results to the
FDA, reducing the likelihood that contaminated
food would be shipped. Section 106 would have
given the agency stronger authority to obtain
access to a companys records without having
to show specific cause for the review, which
would have made it harder for companies to conceal from inspectors records that indicated problems. Such lack of disclosure has allegedly happened in some cases. For example, during the
200809 outbreak of Salmonella in peanut products, according to the FDAs congressional testimony, the agencys review of the firms testing
recordswhich were not disclosed to FDA and
state inspectors during earlier routine inspectionsrevealed that there were instances in
2007 and 2008 in which the firm distributed
product in commerce that tested positive for Salmonella.68 Although legislative reforms such as
these would be helpful, there is no obvious legislative vehicle available at this point for Congress
to use in implementing such reforms.
There are other issues with the food supply
that should be considered as well. First, the
new laws strengthening of the FDAs authorities
does not address the shortcomings in the Department of Agricultures powers to prevent or adH e a lt h A f fai r s

919

Food Safety

The views expressed in this article are

not necessarily those of The Pew
Charitable Trusts.

920

H e a lt h A f fai r s

M ay 2 0 1 1

30:5

food.75 Completion of a strong guidance document could be a helpful first step, but, ultimately,
mandatory requirements are needed.
Finally, measures are needed that prevent
tainting of food by environmental contaminants,
such as untreated sewage or manure that enter
waters and pollute crops downstream, and requirements are needed to strengthen controls
on air and water discharges of mercury and other
common pollutants that are widely found in the
food supply. Such measures would help reduce
the risks to the American public. These would
probably require the FDA, Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency
to work together, and these agencies may need to
receive strengthened legal authorities and issue
regulations to prevent contamination from occurring before it affects the food supply.
For example, legislation to fund and ensure
stronger sewage treatment has been proposed.76
Also, the Environmental Protection Agency has
taken preliminary steps to reduce manure runoff
from large animal feeding operations77 and to
address mercury contamination from power
plants.78 However, some state officials and many
other experts believe that more vigorous regulatory action, potentially including new legislation, is needed to prevent these types of contamination.71,7981
Although the new 2011 food safety law will
help modernize key aspects of the nations food
safety system at the FDA, important gaps remain.
Potential shortcomings from decades-old laws
regarding meat, poultry, and food additives; serious resource constraints; and fragmented legal
authorities spread across multiple agencies must
be carefully evaluated and addressed. Our food
safety system should accommodate rapidly developing scientific knowledge, escalating demand for scientific capacity and other resources
at the FDA, the need to address emerging health
risks, and the greatly changed food industry.
The time has come to review and update our
mid-twentieth-century food laws and programs
to ensure that they are up to the task of pragmatically overseeing the modern food industry
and preventing twenty-first-century threats to
public health.

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

dress meat and poultry contamination. For example, court decisions handed down under the
decades-old meat safety law have blocked the
department from closing down meatpacking
plants where repeated tests have found Salmonella contamination.69 There have been proposals to create a single food safety agency that
would cover all food.70 However, Congress has
yet to move forward on proposals to enact such
legislation or to update the meat and poultry
laws. A recent Government Accountability Office
report has reiterated the offices previous recommendation that serious consideration be given to
consolidating or restructuring the fragmented
food safety system, which the office found is
splintered among fifteen federal agencies including the Department of Agriculture and the FDA,
implementing thirty laws.17
In addition, the FDAs science and analysis are
in need of modernization and additional resources. The FDA Science Boards Subcommittee on
Science and Technology found that the agency
suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and
is not positioned to meet current or emerging
regulatory responsibilities because the demands on the agency have soared in recent years,
and the resources have not increased in proportion to the demands.71 The agencys oversight of
food additivesespecially the procedures for
substances that are generally recognized as
safemay be in particular need of updating
and strengthening, as the Government Accountability Office recommended.60 Desirable improvements may include regular reevaluations
of current research on the risks posed by all
substances added to food and establishing a system to evaluate all risks in assessing the safety of
these compounds.
Legislative or administrative actions should be
considered to prevent problematic nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics in animal agriculture, to
reduce the risk of creating and spreading antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Bills to mandate such
reform were introduced in Congress in 2009 and
reintroduced in 2011, but they have not moved
beyond the hearing stage.7274 The FDA has proposed, but not yet finalized, a voluntary guidance document intended to encourage the judicious use of key antibiotics in animals used for

NOTES

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Human Reproduction. NTP-CERHR

monograph on the potential human
reproductive and developmental
effects of bisphenol A [Internet].
Research Triangle Park (NC): NTP;
2008 Sep [cited 2010 Dec 10].
Available from http://cerhr.niehs
.nih.gov/evals/bisphenol/bisphenol
.pdf
Arnich N, Canivenc-Lavier MC,
Kolf-Clauw M, Coffigny H, Cravedi
JP, Grob K, et al. Conclusions of the
French Food Safety Agency on the
toxicity of bisphenol A. Int J Hyg
Environ Health. 2011 Jan 7. [Epub
ahead of print].
Robinson RA. Food safety and security: fundamental changes needed to
ensure safe food; testimony before
the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
US Senate [Internet]. Washington
(DC): Government Accountability
Office; 2001 Oct 10 [cited 2011
Mar 23]. Available from: http://www
.gao.gov/new.items/d0247t.pdf
Government Accountability Office.
Federal food safety oversight: food
safety working group is a positive
first step but governmentwide planning is needed to address fragmentation [Internet]. Washington (DC):
GAO; 2011 Mar [cited 2011 April 5].
Available from: http://www.gao
.gov/new.items/d11289.pdf
Food Additives Amendment to the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, Pub. L. No. 85-929; 1958. Secs.
201(s) and 409.
It should be noted that the studies in
this and Note 20 were based on
earlier, higher estimates from the
CDC of the number of people affected by foodborne disease. Scharff
RL. Health-related costs from foodborne illness in the United States
[Internet]. Washington (DC): Produce Safety Project, Georgetown
University; 2010 [cited 2011 Feb 20].
Available from: http://www.produce
safetyproject.org/admin/assets/
files/Health-Related-FoodborneIllness-Costs-Report.pdf-1.pdf
Roberts T. WTP estimates of the
societal costs of food-borne illness.
Amer. J Agr Econ. 2007;89(5):
11838.
Tauxe RV. Emerging foodborne diseases: an evolving public health
challenge. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;
3(4):42534.
Steele M, Odumeru J. Irrigation
water as source of foodborne
pathogens on fruit and vegetables. J
Food Prot. 2004;67(12):283949.
Erickson M, Critzer F, Doyle M.
Composting criteria for animal
manure [Internet]. Washington
(DC): Produce Safety Project,
Georgetown University; 2010 [cited
2010 Dec 15]. (Issue Brief). Available

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

from: http://www.producesafety
project.org/admin/assets/files/
PEW-PSP-Composting-ManureNarrative-v4-2.pdf
Sheridan JJ. Sources of contamination during slaughter and measures
for control. J Food Safety. 1998;
18(4):32139.
Dirty birds: even premium chickens harbor dangerous bacteria.
Consum Rep. 2007;72(1):203.
Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service. Nationwide federal plant raw ground
beef microbiological survey: August 1993March 1994 [Internet].
Washington (DC): USDA; 1996 Apr
[cited 2010 Nov 29]. Available from:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/
baseline/rwgrbeef.pdf
Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service. Nationwide raw ground turkey microbiological survey [Internet]. Washington (DC): USDA; 1996 May [cited
2010 Nov 29]. Available from:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPHS/
baseline/rwgrturk.pdf
Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service.
Foodborne illness: what consumers
need to know [Internet]. Washington (DC): USDA; [last modified
2006 Apr 3; cited 2010 Dec 8]. (Fact
Sheet). Available from: http://
www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Food
borne_Illness_What_Consumers_
Need_to_Know/index.asp
Shea KM, American Academy of
Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy
of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. Nontherapeutic use
of antimicrobial agents in animal
agriculture: implications for pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2004;114(3):8628.
Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Veterinary Medicine.
2009 summary report on antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in
food-producing animals [Internet].
Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2010
[cited 2010 Dec 15]. Available from:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
ForIndustry/UserFees/Animal
DrugUserFeeActADUFA/
UCM231851.pdf
Mellon M, Benbrook C,
Lutz Benbrook K. Hogging it:
estimates of antimicrobial abuse in
livestock [Internet]. Cambridge
(MA): Union of Concerned Scientists; 2001 Jan; [cited 2011 Apr 7].
Available from: http://www.ucsusa
.org/assets/documents/food_and_
agriculture/hog_front.pdf
Institute of Medicine. Human health
risks with the subtherapeutic use of
penicillin or tetracyclines in animal
feed. Washington (DC): National
Academies Press; 1989.
Khan A. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on

May 2 011

3 0:5

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

1 Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ,

Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL,
et al. Foodborne illness acquired in
the United Statesmajor pathogens.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(1):715.
2 Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ,
Tauxe RV, Hoekstra RM. Foodborne
illness acquired in the United
Statesunspecified agents. Emerg
Infect Dis. 2011;17(1):1622.
3 Lindsay JA. Chronic sequelae of
foodborne disease. Emerg Infect Dis.
2007;3(4):44352.
4 Danaei G, Ding EL, Mozaffarian D,
Taylor B, Rehm J, Murray CJ, et al.
The preventable causes of death in
the United States: comparative risk
assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and
metabolic risk factors. PLoS Med.
2009;6(4):e1000058.
5 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Sodium fact sheet
[Internet]. Atlanta (GA): CDC; [cited
2011 Feb 13] Available from: http://
www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_
statistics/fact_sheets/fs_sodium
.htm
6 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Americans consume too
much sodium (salt) [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): CDC; [cited 2011 Feb 13].
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/
Features/dsSodium/
7 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Trans fat [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): CDC; [cited 2011 Feb 13].
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/
nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/
transfat.html
8 Food and Drug Administration. What
you need to know about mercury in
fish and shellfish [Internet]. Silver
Spring (MD): FDA; 2004 [last updated 2009 Sep 17; cited 2011 Feb
13]. Available from: http://www
.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/productspecificinformation/seafood/food
bornepathogenscontaminants/
methylmercury/ucm115662.htm
9 National Research Council. Pesticides in the diets of infants and
children.Washington (DC): National
Academies Press; 1993.
10 Payne-Sturges D, Cohen J, Castorina
R, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. Evaluating cumulative organophosphorus
pesticide body burden of children: a
national case study. Environ Sci
Technol. 2009;43(20):792430.
11 Braun JM, Hauser R. Bisphenol A
and childrens health. Curr Opin
Pediatr. 2011;23(2):2339.
12 Groff T. Bisphenol A: invisible
pollution. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010;
22(4):5249.
13 Golub MS, Wu KL, Kaufman FL, Li
LH, Moran-Messen F, Zeise L, et al.
Bisphenol A: developmental toxicity
from early prenatal exposure. Birth
Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol.
2010;89(6):44166.
14 National Toxicology Program,
Center for the Evaluation of Risks to

H e a lt h A f fai r s

921

Food Safety

34

36

37

38

39

40

922

H e a lt h A f fai r s

M ay 2 0 1 1

30:5

197739.htm#studies
41 Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.
About bisphenol [Internet]. Washington (DC): BPA Global Group;
[cited 2011 Feb 12]. Available from:
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/about/
index.html
42 European Food Safety Authority
[Internet]. Parma (Italy): EFSA;
c2010. Press release, EFSA updates
advice on bisphenol A; 2010 Sep 30
[cited 2011 Feb 15]. Available from:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/
press/news/cef100930.htm
43 American Chemistry Council.
Phthalates information center [Internet]. Washington (DC): The
Council; [cited 2011 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.american
chemistry.com/s_phthalate/index
.asp
44 Environmental Protection Agency.
Mercury: controlling power plant
emissions: overview [Internet].
Washington (DC): EPA; [last updated 2010 Oct 1; cited 2011 Apr 5].
Available from: http://www.epa
.gov/hg/control_emissions/index
.htm
45 Mahan S, Warner K. Hidden costs:
reduced IQ from chlor-alkali plant
mercury emissions harms the
economy [Internet]. Washington
(DC): Oceana; 2009 May [cited 2011
Apr 5]. Available from: http://na
.oceana.org/sites/default/files/
reports/Hidden_Costs.pdf
46 European Commission. An economic and environmental analysis of
the chlor-alkali production process:
mercury cells and alternative technologies [Internet]. Brussels: EC;
1997 Jun 30 [cited 2011 Apr 5].
Available from: http://www.chem
.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo-sub/
eurochlor/sub1ngoatt6.pdf
47 US Geological Survey. Mercury in
the environment [Internet]. Reston
(VA): USGS; 2000 Oct [cited 2010
Dec 8]. (Fact Sheet No. 146-00).
Available from: http://www.usgs
.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/
48 Selin NE, Sunderland EM, Knightes
CD, Mason RP. Sources of mercury
exposure for US seafood consumers:
implications for policy. Environ
Health Perspect. 2010;118:13743.
49 Hintelmann H. Organomercurials:
their formation and pathways in the
environment. Met Ions Life Sci.
2010;7:365401.
50 Environmental Protection Agency.
Fish consumption advisories [Internet]. Washington (DC): EPA; [cited
2010 Dec 10]. Available from: http://
www.epa.gov/hg/advisories.htm
51 Department of Agriculture. Pesticide
Data Program: annual summary,
calendar year 2008 [Internet].
Washington (DC): USDA; 2009 Dec
[cited 3011 Mar 24]. Available from:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=
STELPRDC5081750
52 Baker BP, Benbrook CM, Groth E

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

3rd, Lutz Benbrook K. Pesticide

residues in conventional, integrated
pest management (IPM)grown and
organic foods: insights from three
US data sets. Food Addit Contam.
2002;19(5):42746.
Waxman H. Fact sheet: weaknesses
in FDAs food safety system [Internet]. Washington (DC): House of
Representatives; 2006 [cited 2010
Dec 12]. Available from: http://
www.henrywaxman.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/FDA_Food_Safety_
Fact_Sheet.pdf
Government Accountability Office.
Food safety: improvements needed
in FDA oversight of fresh produce
[Internet]. Washington (DC): GAO;
[cited 2011 Mar 24]. Available from:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d081047.pdf
Cohen R. Lacking resources, FDA
inspects less than 1 percent of imports. San Diego Union Tribune.
2007 Jun 13.
Food and Drug Administration.
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HACCP) [Internet]. Silver
Spring (MD): FDA; [last updated
2009 Jul 20; cited 2010 Dec 8].
Available from: http://www.fda.gov/
food/foodsafety/hazardanalysis
criticalcontrolpointshaccp/
default.htm
Vogt DU. Food additive regulations:
a chronology [Internet]. Washington
(DC): Congressional Research Service; 1995 Sep 13 [cited 2010 Dec 8].
Available from: http://ncseonline
.org/nle/crsreports/pesticides/
pest-5.cfm
House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Committee report, H.R. Rep.
No. 85-2284 (1958 Jul 28).
Fortin ND. Food regulation: law,
science, policy, and practice.
Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2009.
Government Accountability Office.
Food safety: FDA should strengthen
its oversight of food ingredients determined to be generally recognized
as safe (GRAS) [Internet]. Washington (DC): GAO; 2010 Feb [cited 2011
Mar 24]. Available from: http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d10246
.pdf
Borrell B. Toxicology: the big test for
bisphenol A. Nature. 2010;464:
11224.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Accomplishments under the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) [Internet]. Washington (DC): EPA;
2006 Aug 3 [cited 2010 Dec 10].
Available from: http://www.epa
.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/
fqpa/fqpa_accomplishments.htm
Schierow L-J. Pesticide residue
regulation: analysis of Food Quality
Protection Act implementation [Internet]. Washington (DC):
Congressional Research Service;
1999 Aug 3 [cited 2010 Dec 14].
Available from: http://ncseonline

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

35

Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, hearing on antibiotic resistance and the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture [Internet]. Washington (DC): The
Subcommittee; 2010 Jul 14 [cited
2011 Mar 24]. Available from:
http://democrats.energycommerce
.house.gov/documents/20100714/
Khan.Testimony.07.14.2010.pdf
Sharfstein JM. Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House
of Representatives, hearing on antibiotic resistance and the use of
antibiotics in animal agriculture
[Internet]. Washington (DC): The
Subcommittee; 2010 Jul 14 [cited
2011 Mar 24]. Available from:
http://democrats.energycommerce
.house.gov/documents/20100714/
Sharfstein.Testimony.07.14.2010
.pdf
Clifford J. Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House
of Representatives, hearing on antibiotic resistance and the use of
antibiotics in animal agriculture
[Internet]. Washington (DC): The
Subcommittee; 2010 [cited 2011
Mar 24]. Available from: http://
democrats.energycommerce.house
.gov/documents/20100714/Clifford
.Testimony.07.14.2010.pdf
World Health Organization. Use of
antimicrobials outside human
medicine and resultant antimicrobial resistance in humans. Geneva:
WHO; 2002. (Fact Sheet 268).
American Meat Institute. Antibiotic
use in livestock production: ensuring meat safety [Internet]. Washington (DC): AMI; 2010 Feb [cited
2010 Dec 8]. (AMI Fact Sheet).
Available from: http://www
.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocument
Action/i/56994
Euromonitor International Outlook
of US Food Products Consumption
And Export Trends. 2010 Food Export Marketing Forum [Internet].
Chicago (IL): Euromonitor; [cited
2011 April 28]. Available from:
http://fea.files.cms-plus.com/
Presentations/Outlook%20for%
20Global%20Food%20Trade.pdf
National Toxicology Program,
Center for the Evaluation of Risks to
Human Reproduction. NTP-CERHR
monograph on the potential human
reproductive and developmental effects of di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP)
[Internet]. Research Triangle Park
(NC): NTP; [cited 2010 Dec 8].
Available from: http://cerhr.niehs
.nih.gov/evals/phthalates/dbp/
DBP_Monograph_Final.pdf
Food and Drug Administration. Update on bisphenol A for use in food
contact applications: January 2010
[Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): FDA;
2010 [cited 2011 Feb 21]. Available
from: http://www.fda.gov/News
Events/PublicHealthFocus/ucm

64

65

67
68

69
70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

2010, H.R. 6552, 111th Cong., 2nd

Sess. (2010).
FDA Science Board, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology,
Subcommittee on Science and
Technology. FDA science and mission at risk: report of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology
[Internet]. Washington (DC): FDA;
2007 Nov [cited 2011 Apr 5]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/
2007-4329b_02_01_
FDA%20Report%20on%20Science
%20and%20Technology.pdf
Preservation of Antibiotics for
Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 1549,
111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009).
Preservation of Antibiotics for
Medical Treatment Act, S. 619,
111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009).
Preservation of Antibiotics for
Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 965,
112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011).
Food and Drug Administration.
Draft guidance: the judicious use of
medically important antimicrobial
drugs in food-producing animals.
Fed Regist. 2010;75(124):374501.
Water Infrastructure Financing Act,
S. 1005, 111th Cong., 1st Session
(2009).
Environmental Protection Agency.
CAFO rule history [Internet]. Washington (DC): EPA; [last updated
2008 Dec 29; cited 2011 Feb 20].
Available from: http://cfpub.epa

.gov/npdes/afo/aforule.cfm
78 Environmental Protection Agency.
Controlling power plant emissions:
chronology [Internet]. Washington
(DC): EPA; [last updated 2010 Oct 1;
cited 2011 Feb 21]. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/hg/control_
emissions/decision.htm
79 US Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works. Full committee and Subcommittee on Clean
Air and Nuclear Safety joint hearing
entitled, Legislative Hearing: S.
2995, the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 2010 [Internet]. Washington
(DC): The Committee; 2010 Mar 4
[cited 2011 Mar 25]. Available from:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index
.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings
.Hearing&Hearing_ID=0780a976802a-23ad-42f3-03e35b75a30a
80 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm
Animal Production. Putting meat on
the table: industrial farm animal
production in America [Internet].
Washington (DC): Pew Charitable
Trusts; 2008. [cited 2011 Feb 21].
Available from: http://www.ncifap
.org/index.html
81 Clean Water Network. Legislative
and administrative H20 priorities
[Internet]. Washington (DC): The
Network; 2009 Jan [cited 2011 Feb
21]. Available from: http://www
.cleanwaternetwork.org/sites/
default/files/CWN_Priorities.pdf

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: ERIK D. OLSON

Erik D. Olson is the

deputy director of
the Pew Health
Group at the Pew
Charitable Trusts.

In this issue of Health Affairs, Erik

Olson, a deputy director of the Pew
Health Group, who oversees their
food programs, makes the case for
vigorous food safety reforms.

Although federal legislation

overhauling and strengthening
food safety laws recently took
effect, Olson believes that more
needs to be done. With the
exception of the new law, it has
been decades since many
fundamental food safety programs
have been updated, he says. He
contends that that makes no sense,
given the enormous changes in the
food supply over the past several
decades.
Prior to coming to Pew in 2008,
Olson worked in public policy and

consumer advocacy. He served as

the deputy staff director and
general counsel for the Senate
Committee on Environment and
Public Works. Before that, he spent
twenty years working for two
environmental advocacy groups,
the Natural Resources Defense
Council and the National Wildlife
Federation. He also served as an
attorney in the Environmental
Protection Agencys Office of
General Counsel.
Olson received his law degree
from the University of Virginia.

May 2 011

3 0:5

H e a lt h A f fai r s

923

Downloaded from http://content.healthaffairs.org/ by Health Affairs on July 18, 2016 by HW Team

66

.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?
NLEid=1530
Consumers Union. A report card for
the EPA: successes and failures in
implementing the Food Quality
Protection Act [Internet]. Yonkers
(NY): Consumers Union; 2001 Feb
[cited 2010 Dec 14]. Available from:
http://www.consumersunion.org/
pdf/fqpa/ReportCard_final.pdf
Codex Alimentarius [home page on
the Internet]. Rome: Codex; [cited
2011 Feb 12]. Available from: http://
www.codexalimentarius.net/web/
index_en.jsp
Codex Alimentarius. JECFA: The
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives [home page on
the Internet]. Rome: Codex; [cited
2011 Apr 11]. Available from: http://
www.codexalimentarius.net/web/
jecfa.jsp
Food Safety Enhancement Act, H.R.
2749, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009).
Sundlof SF. Statement before the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy
and Commerce, House of Representatives. Washington (DC): The
Subcommittee; 2009 Feb 11 [cited
2011 Mar 24]. Available from:
http://democrats.energycommerce
.house.gov/Press_111/20090211/
testimony_sundlof.pdf
Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v.
USDA, 275 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2001).
Single Food Safety Agency Act of