United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters February 2005 FOOD SAFETY Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety Systems a GAO-05-212 February 2005 FOOD SAFETY Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Experiences of Seven Countries in Highlights of GAO-05-212, a report to Consolidating Their Food Safety Systems congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The safety and quality of the U.S. In consolidating their food safety systems, the seven countries we examined food supply are governed by a —Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and complex system that is the United Kingdom—varied in their approaches and the extent to which administered by 15 agencies. The they consolidated. However, the countries’ approaches were similar in one U.S. Department of Agriculture respect—each established a single agency to lead food safety management (USDA) and the Food and Drug or enforcement of food safety legislation. These countries had two primary Administration (FDA), within the Department of Health and Human reasons for consolidating their food safety systems—public concern about Services (HHS), have primary the safety of the food supply and the need to improve program effectiveness responsibility for food safety. and efficiency. Countries faced challenges in (1) deciding whether to place Many legislative proposals have the agency within the existing health or agriculture ministry or establish it as been made to consolidate the U.S. a stand-alone agency while also determining what responsibilities the new food safety system, but to date no agency would have and (2) helping employees adjust to the new agency’s other action has been taken. culture and support its priorities. Several countries have taken steps to streamline and consolidate their Although none of the countries has analyzed the results of its consolidation, food safety systems. In 1999, we government officials consistently stated that the net effect of their country’s reported on the initial experiences consolidation has been or will likely be beneficial. Officials in most of four of these countries—Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the United countries stated their new food safety agencies incurred consolidation start- Kingdom. Since then, additional up costs. However, in each country, government officials believe that countries, including Germany, the consolidation costs have been or will likely be exceeded by the benefits. Netherlands, and New Zealand, These officials and food industry and consumer stakeholders cited have undertaken consolidations. significant qualitative improvements in the effectiveness or efficiency of their food safety systems. These improvements include less overlap in This report describes the inspections, greater clarity in responsibilities, and more consistent or timely approaches and challenges these enforcement of food safety laws and regulations. In addition to these countries faced in consolidating qualitative benefits, officials from three countries, Canada, Denmark, and the food safety functions, including the Netherlands, identified areas where they believe financial savings may be benefits and costs cited by achieved as a result of consolidation. For example, in the Netherlands government officials and other stakeholders. In commenting on a officials said that reduced duplication in food safety inspections would likely draft of this report, HHS and USDA result in decreased food safety spending and that they anticipate savings said that the countries’ from an expected 25 percent reduction in administrative and management consolidation experiences have personnel. limited applicability to the U.S. food safety system because the Although the seven countries we reviewed are much smaller than the United countries are much smaller than States, they are also high-income countries where consumers have very high the United States. The two expectations for food safety. Consequently, we believe that the countries’ agencies believe that they are experiences in consolidating food safety systems can offer useful working together effectively to information to U.S. policymakers. ensure the safety of the food supply. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-212. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact Robert A. Robinson at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Countries Have Taken Various Consolidation Approaches, and Officials and Stakeholders Cited Challenges and Costs but Believe Food Safety Systems Are Now More Effective 12 Concluding Observations 24 Comments from the Seven Countries Examined 25 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25 Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 28 Appendix II: Canada’s Food Safety System Consolidation 30 Appendix III: Denmark’s Food Safety System Consolidation 34 Appendix IV: Germany’s Food Safety System Consolidation 37 Appendix V: Ireland’s Food Safety System Consolidation 41 Appendix VI: The Netherlands’ Food Safety System Consolidation 46 Appendix VII: New Zealand’s Food Safety System Consolidation 50 Appendix VIII: The United Kingdom’s Food Safety System Consolidation 53 Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 57 Appendix X: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 60 Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 62 GAO Contacts 62 Staff Acknowledgments 62 Table Table 1: Comparison of Selected Countries’ Population, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Total Food Consumption, per Capita GDP, and Spending for Food as a Percentage of Total Spending 10 Figures Figure 1: U.S. Federal Agencies’ Food Safety Responsibilities 7 Figure 2: Improvements in Food Safety Operations Cited by Government Officials or Stakeholders 15 Page i GAO-05-212 Food Safety Systems Contents Figure 3: Summary of Canada’s Food Safety System Consolidation 17 Figure 4: Summary of Denmark’s Food Safety System Consolidation 19 Figure 5: Summary of Germany’s Food Safety System Consolidation 20 Figure 6: Summary of Ireland’s Food Safety System Consolidation 21 Figure 7: Summary of the Netherlands’ Food Safety System Consolidation 22 Figure 8: Summary of New Zealand’s Food Safety System Consolidation 23 Figure 9: Summary of the United Kingdom’s Food Safety System Consolidation 24 Figure 10: Food Safety Authority of Ireland’s Organization 43 Figure 11: The Netherlands’ 2001 Food Safety System Organization 47 Figure 12: The Netherlands’ 2002 and 2003 Food Safety System Organization 47 Page ii GAO-05-212 Food Safety Systems Contents Abbreviations AMS Agricultural Marketing Service APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ARS Agricultural Research Service BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency DVFA Danish Veterinary and Food Administration EFSA European Food Safety Authority EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union FDA Food and Drug Administration FSA Food Standards Agency FSAI Food Safety Authority of Ireland FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service GDP gross domestic product HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services KvW Inspectorate for Health Protection and Veterinary Public Health NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NZFSA New Zealand Food Safety Agency RVV National Inspection Service for Livestock and Meat USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VWA The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page iii GAO-05-212 Food Safety Systems A United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548 February 22, 2005 Leter The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka Ranking Member Subcommittee on Oversight, Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Richard Durbin United States Senate 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