Topic:

Presenter: DAN GLICKMAN
US SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

The State of Washington needs no lecture on the importance of safe food. Long before the tragedy of 1993, this state and this university have been on the cutting-edge in fighting food-borne illness. Washington was the first state -- back in 1987 -- to make E. coli 0157:H7 a reportable disease. Today, some 40 states have followed suit. I'm proud to have in the audience today Dr. Phillip Tarr, a world expert on Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, along with Dr. John Kobayashi, one of our nation's finest epidemiologists. These are true pioneers in the safety of America's food.

I also want to introduce someone on my team. Just a few years ago, the words 'public health' were rarely uttered at the Department of Agriculture. Today, we have an Office of Public Health and Science which is headed by Dr. Kay Wachsmuth who used to be a researcher here at the University of Washington. We're very lucky to have her. She's one of the world's leading experts in microbiology and infectious diseases.

You know, I talk a lot to folks in the meat and poultry industry and to consumers, but I rarely talk to scientists. That's because when I talk to all of you about the CDC, or epidemiology or the finer points of microbial testing and DNA fingerprinting, and I get something wrong, you can call me on it. So I stand here not without trepidation. On the other hand, I never confuse myself with a scientist. My domain is public policy, and I'm here because our arenas -- science and government -- are making a dramatic difference -- and can do more to improve the public health.

You know, we hear people grouse all the time about how much better things would be if government just got out of the way. But ask those same people: who should make sure the planes they fly run safely? Who should ensure the solvency of the banks that hold their life savings? Who should be in charge of the nation's defense? The unanimous answer is government. Food safety falls into this same category, and people don't just want government involved in food safety. They want government to do more.

Why? Because people look to their government to protect them in ways that they cannot fully protect themselves. People look to government to give them peace of mind -- in my case, to tell them that the food they feed their families is safe.

There is no responsibility that I take more seriously as Secretary of Agriculture. President Clinton is equally serious. He knows that this is an issue that effects the quality of every

American life, every day. That's why, yesterday, when President Clinton declared the State of the Union strong, he made a point of mentioning his commitment to improving food safety.

I come here today to expand on that message. I don't want another family to go through what the families I met with this morning have been through. Ask them. Ask Doctor Tarr. It's not something you would wish on your worst enemy. We don't have a silver bullet, at least not yet. But we do have the power to take dramatic steps toward safer food.

From new science-based meat and poultry inspections to historic investments in everything from cutting-edge research and surveillance to consumer education ... I am proud of what this Administration has done for food safety in America. Alongside a balanced budget and a formidable U.S. economy, I believe that a science-based revolution in the safety of our food will be one of our lasting legacies.

The same month this Administration took office along with Senator Patty Murray, who has been a great champion of our food safety efforts tragedy struck here, galvanizing the nation behind a morally unstoppable mandate for dramatic change. At the time, that meant modernizing our systems -- taking what science had learned and raising the bar on food safety.

The best example is USDA's new meat and poultry inspection system which when on-line at bigger plants this Monday. For close to a century, our inspectors had to rely solely on their human senses -- sight, touch and smell -- to spot contamination. We now know that the biggest dangers in our food are invisible pathogens that cannot be detected without the help of science. But clearly, the old ways -- which date back to the turn of the century when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle and sparked the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, one of America's first consumer protection laws -- were no longer adequate.

Our new inspection system recognizes what science has discovered. For the first time, there will be regular tests for generic E. coli and Salmonella. For the first time, plants and processors will be required to not just catch contamination but to close the safety gaps that invite it. For the first time, the focus is on prevention, and America's public policy makes it crystal clear that industry is responsible for producing safe food.

We call the new system Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points -- HACCP, for short. It requires plants to come up with a tailored prevention plan that targets key points in their operation where contamination might occur and outlines specific steps to ensure safety. USDA's job is to make sure the plans work through testing, inspections and reviews of company records.

This is a major cultural change. I've talked to industry and consumer groups over the past few weeks to make it clear that USDA will be fair but firm in its enforcement. HACCP's goal is to use modem science to significantly improve food safety, and we will not back away from that goal. In 1996, we shut down six plants for inadequate sanitation. In 1997, as companies phased in their HACCP sanitation plans that number rose to 20. So companies need to take their new responsibilities very seriously, every day.

When there are problems, our goal, obviously, is to step in early enough that failures can be addressed without any major disruptions and certainly before illnesses occur. Many companies are good about fixing problems quickly. Unfortunately, others let the complaints pile up, engaging in a game of regulatory chicken, knowing fall well that USDA's only formal recourse is to shut them down. Some offenses are so egregious that severe action is war-ranted. But many times it's not, and a lesser punishment, such as a fine, would do. Unfortunately, while the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FAA can issue fines. USDA cannot. It is an g to unjustifiable anomaly. After all, USDA can fine you for abusing a circus elephant, for failing to report to the watermelon committee, or selling a cat without a license. Yet when it comes to unsafe food -- the only one of these actions that puts people's lives at stake -- our hands are tied.

It's wrong. We should not treat unsafe food differently than any other threat to the public health.

I want to thank Senator Murray for her effort on behalf of the Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act which would give USDA the authority to fine companies that violate food safety standards. This would give them a strong incentive to fix problems quickly so things don't escalate to the point where a plant's very existence is on the line. No one wants that. But as we have demonstrated, to protect the public health, USDA will take whatever action is necessary.

I'll never forget during the Hudson recall when I stopped in at a fast-food restaurant for lunch. I asked the guy at the register, 'how do you know when your burgers are cooked.' He said, 'we use a meat thermometer". Then, I asked, 'how do you use it?' He looked at me and said, 'we stick it in our customers mouths". In a roundabout way, that was an encouraging answer. Evidently, he'd been asked that question one too many times .. consumers wanted to know.

Do you know what NPR's top 3 stories of 1997 were? One: Princess Diana. Two: Iraq's chemical weapons. Three: the Hudson Beef recall ... Consumers are interested and increasingly educated. Meat thermometer sales this past Thanksgiving were at record highs. These trends reflect a basic truth in today's world: the health interests of consumers and the economic interests of the food industry are coming together. Why? Because safe food sells.

Look at the global scares of 1997: During the avian flu epidemic in Hong Kong -- where they killed all the chickens -- Hong Kong consumers cut their poultry purchases in half. With the mad cow problem in Europe, beef sales there dropped 40%. Here at home, what was the market impact of the Hudson beef recall? Nearly zero. People trusted that government and the public health community were putting their safety first. That trust is rare around the world. All of us must constantly challenge ourselves to earn it.

I mentioned that with the early food safety advances of this Administration, the focus was more on adjusting our standards to reflect modem science. Our challenge now is to push the frontiers of our knowledge, seeking new ways to improve food safety and better understand our enemy.

Why are we seeing new, more virulent, resistant strains of E. coli and other pathogens? As our surveillance has increased, we've found that campylobacter is the number one cause of food borne illness. Why? There are also on-farm questions: What causes E. coli to show up in some animals and not others? Are there ways to prevent it from appearing or multiplying? This would be the ultimate prevention: Can we stop pathogens from showing up in the first place? Dr. Dale Hancock is doing some very interesting work at Washington State on these issues.

Some of the new technologies we're developing are equally fascinating. I understand that there is work underway to adapt Gulf War technology that identified nerve gas in the air for use in detecting pathogens on food. It would work sort of like night-vision goggles that arm our eyes with the ability to quickly and easily spot microbial threats.

There are also existing technologies, like irradiation. FDA recently cleared the practice for use on meat. USDA's now working on a regulation, but the jury of public opinion is still out. Of course increased public concern over food safety might make it more popular today than it has been over the years for poultry.

But clearly, as we look ahead to the next generation of food safety challenges, increasingly we look to science and technology for answers. This Administration recognized this in our White House Food Safety Initiative, investing in cutting-edge research; enhanced inspections; a catchy, easy-to-understand consumer education campaign; and -- probably most of interest to all of you - the construction of a national high-tech early warning system to prevent food-borne illness.

The early warning system helps us dramatically cut down the time it takes to identify and get to the source of an outbreak. We can now do in 24 hours what -- just a few years ago --would have taken two weeks. Just a few years ago, to try and link a person's illness to an outbreak or get at the source of the problem would have required mailing samples around the country and hundreds of hours of lab work. Now, folks can enter the genetic fingerprint of a particular pathogen into a national database, and the computer quickly sorts through all the entries for a match -- saving time, saving money, saving lives.

This system is not unlike what law enforcement uses to track criminals. A police officer plugs in a suspect's fingerprints and instantly gets any criminal record or outstanding warrants. Our scientists can get a similar 'rap sheet' on a pathogen -- everything from its link to an outbreak, to its known sources, to the toxins it produces. I want to commend the work done at the Washington state public health lab which is among a handful of state labs around the country that have joined with CDC in doing DNA fingerprinting. In early February, this database will be available nationwide, making a world of difference in fighting outbreaks. Anyone who's been involved in these efforts knows what a: difference every day, hour and minute makes in tracking the culprit.

DNA fingerprinting enabled Dr. Kobayashi and his team to quickly pinpoint the Odwalla outbreak. It also enabled us to identify the Hudson outbreak. The state lab in Colorado plugged their strains into the national database, spotted the outbreak, and e-mailed the information to CDC. CDC was then able to link the illnesses to hamburger thanks to DNA data on the food side of the equation that was provided by USDA's lab in Athens, Georgia. In the Pacific Northwest outbreak, which was before we had this rapid response capability, 732 people became ill before we could identify the problem. In the Hudson case, we stopped the outbreak at 16 illnesses. Our goal is to keep bringing that number down, but we have made dramatic progress.

I say 'we' for a reason. Our ability to work across federal, state, university and private lines will be critical to our efforts. Food is now produced, processed and moved quickly around the country - in massive quantities. The days where food-borne illness is linked to local church picnics are likely to be subsumed by outbreaks with a far greater geographic reach, requiring a national community of scientists who work together. We are building that today.

In looking ahead, the increasingly central role of science and public health experts in fighting the next generation of food safety battles is obvious to me. But it would be far too easy to put everything on your shoulders. You must give us the scientific answers and technological breakthroughs. But government must ensure that you get the resources you need to get the job done right.

Before I proceed, I should have you know that this Administration is under strict orders not reveal what's in President Clinton's 1999 budget. But I made a special phone call, and got' permission to share some good news with all of you. We know from the State of the Union Address that this will be the first balanced budget in a generation which means that we're going to see some tough decisions on funding priorities.

I know that has some concerned about the future of our food safety efforts. Don't be. As the federal budget comes down, the federal food safety budget will go up -- way, way up. In 1998, we increased food safety investments by $43.5 million. For 1999, President Clinton will propose an increase of $.101 million -- over and above the 1998 levels -- to continue high-priority food safety efforts -- from enhanced inspections to cutting-edge research and surveillance.

This is a show of faith in the work of many of the people in this room. It is a reflection Of the strong desire of the American people for a food safety revolution. And, it is a sign of respect for the many families who have worked through their own tragedies to push government, industry, consumers, and the scientific community to rise to one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. I want to thank the scientific community here in Washington state for the pioneering role you have played on food safety. I am grateful for all that you have done. But with this new, invigorated commitment, it is my hope that your greatest achievements are yet ahead. This Administration will support you every step of the way.

Thank you.

List of Lectures