President Obama this week nominated physician Elisabeth Hagen to fill the top food safety position at the Department of Agriculture, a move that has surprised food safety advocates.  The nomination comes almost a year into an administration in which food safety was to be a top priority.

Dr. Hagen is a relative unknown in the food safety field, and her nomination comes as a surprise in large part because she has only four years of direct experience with food safety.  According to the Washington Post, most of Hagen’s career has been spent as an infectious disease specialist.  In 2006, she signed on with the USDA‘s Food Safety and Inspection Service, where she eventually served as chief medical officer.

Food safety advocacy groups are hesitant about the nomination because of the limited information available on Hagen, the Consumer Federation of America has said it is looking forward to working with Dr. Hagen.  Meat industry groups have also praised Hagen’s nomination.  The American Meat Institute’s Patrick J. Boyle was quoted in the Washington Post praising Hagen’s “background, skills and vision.”

Hagen’s nomination is not expected to encounter strong political opposition.

A recently released report by the Produce Safety Project has found wide variation in state health departments’ ability to monitor and respond to food borne illnesses.  The report, based on survey data collected from 39 of the 51 state and District of Columbia health departments, also found that contaminated fruits and vegetables are likely to play a secondary role in state health department investigations.

The report notes that state health departments often lack the financial support and resources to adequately address food borne illness outbreaks, describing them as “chronically underfunded and understaffed.”  The lack of resources available to state health departments has contributed to a serious disparity in food safety standards.  The report from the Produce Safety Project blames this variation for “delays in public-health response, …additional illnesses, and unnecessary financial burdens.”

The solution, the report contends, is proactive and strong federal regulation of food illnesses.  The variable information management of state health agencies stands in contrast to the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control’s more comprehensive food borne illness data supervision.  The report concludes that, “while more funding would likely help state and federal agencies prevent and detect outbreaks of foodborne illness, broader organizational efforts are also needed to create a truly integrated food-safety network…  These changes could be accomplished… through strengthening of applicable legal authorities and strong federal leadership.”

The article comes in advance of Senate debate on the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), which supporters claim will greatly improve the federal government’s ability to prevent and respond to food borne illnesses.

The report was produced by the Produce Safety Project, a program at Georgetown University that advocates stronger federal regulation of food safety.  Also contributing to the report was S.T.O.P., or Safe Tables Our Priority, a prominent nonprofit group dedicated to improving food safety in the United States.  A PDF version of the full report can be found on the Produce Safety Project’s website.

A new bill to be introduced in the Senate aims to impose federally mandated E. coli testing for all ground beef produced in the United States.  The bill, announced yesterday by its sponsor Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), addresses a long ignored aspect of ground beef-related illness, namely the use of so-called “trimmings” in beef production.

The proposed measure, the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009, would require testing for E. coli at both slaughterhouses and grinding facilities.  This is an especially important development, as it closes a key gap in testing of beef.

The USDA has outlawed E. coli contamination in beef since 1994.  However, there is currently no law in place mandating testing of beef for the disease.  The agency has instead relied on producers to do voluntary testing, resulting in widely inconsistent standards.  The new measure would mandate that E. coli testing begin in the earliest stages of the beef production process.

Slaughterhouses have for years resisted testing on their products, and the trade group  the American Meat Institute was yesterday quoted in the New York Times in opposition to the E. Coli Eradication Act.  Many, however, recognize the importance of testing at slaughterhouses.

The key aspect of the legislation is the attention paid to trimmings, miscellaneous bits of meat sliced from various parts of the cow.  Sen. Gillibrand noted in her press release that the trimmings are, “especially vulnerable to E. coli because its source material is not from a single cut of meat, rather, it is a compilation of… many parts, including fat that lies near the surface of possibly contaminated hide.”  A cow’s hide can become contaminated during the slaughtering process from feces and other waste.

The legislation complements the recently introduced FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), giving food safety advocates hope that the current Congress shares their interest in protecting consumers from tainted products.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved a bill similar to a measure passed in the House this summer that gives the Food and Drug Administration sweeping new powers to protect consumers from tainted foods.  The measure was unanimously approved by the 23-member committee, indicating strong bipartisan support.

Like the House bill, the Senate version of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act would give the FDA the power to issue a mandatory recall if there is evidence of food borne illness.  Currently, the FDA only has the authority to suggest voluntary recalls to food producers if it suspects a food product may be contaminated.

While the measure passed out of committee unanimously, there was some degree of controversy over its details.  Some Democrats expressed concerns that the bill could do more to protect consumers.  Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) criticized the bill for its failure to address the use of antibiotics in livestock, which he fears has the potential to produce antibiotic-resistant illnesses.

Perhaps the biggest point of contention was over how to pay for the new regulations.  The House bill called for a $500 fee levied on food producers to help fund the FDA’s new powers.  But both Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IL) and ranking Republican Mike Enzi (R-WY) have stated that they are uncomfortable with forcing an industry to pay for its own regulation.  Harkin was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, saying, “If this is something for public protection, it’s something we all should pay for.”  Members of both parties anticipate revisions after the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill.

Advocates for the supermarket industry praised the bill.  Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pam Bailey praised the measure, calling it, “sensible legislation that will strengthen the foundation of America’s food safety systems.”  Organic Farming groups, on the other hand, qualified their support for the bill with the caveat that it must do more to protect organic farmers in a way that reflects their differing methods of processing.

The bill, S. 510, will now face a vote in the full Senate, though Sen. Harkin cautions that it is unlikely to come up for a vote until early next year because of the Senate’s ongoing consideration of health care reform.