July 4, 2011

Congress moves to cut screening for food E. coli

The commercial produce industry had suggested ending the program's $4.5 million in funding.

By MONICA ENG Chicago Tribune

Congress is moving to eliminate the only national program that regularly screens U.S. fruits and vegetables for the type of E. coli that recently caused a deadly outbreak in Germany.

click image to enlarge

The House last month approved a bill that would end funding for the Microbiological Data Program, which tests samples of vulnerable produce such as sprouts, lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, cantaloupes and cilantro for pathogens including salmonella and E. coli.

Associated Press file

The House last month approved a bill that would end funding for the 10-year-old Microbiological Data Program, which annually tests about 15,000 samples of vulnerable produce such as sprouts, lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, cantaloupes and cilantro for pathogens including salmonella and E. coli.

Over the past two years, its findings have triggered at least 19 produce recalls, said the Food and Drug Administration.

The commercial produce industry, which has long expressed concerns about the program, this spring suggested ending its $4.5 million funding. In a memo to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the USDA's Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee complained about "unnecessary recalls" and asked if the funds would be "better utilized elsewhere."

Industry representatives suggested that similar screening is done by other agencies.

"We would not be left in a lurch if the MDP is not out there," said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association.

But defenders of the program note that no other agency tests the same breadth of produce for pathogens. For example, the FDA typically spot-checks about 1,000 samples a year, compared with 15,000 for the Microbiological Data Program. In addition, the only E. coli the FDA tests for is the O157 H7 strain, but the MDP also tests for strains that include the E. coli that contaminated sprouts in Europe, killing 44 and sickening 3,700.

Eliminating the program "may serve the interests of agribusiness, but it's a serious disservice to consumers and public health," said Ken Cook, head of the consumer advocacy organization the Environmental Working Group. "Since when does it make sense not to check food for potentially deadly pathogens?"

The question now moves to the Senate, which will craft its version of the discretionary spending bill for FDA and USDA programs in coming months.

The Microbiological Data Program was started as a sister program to the equally controversial Pesticide Data Program, which monitors pesticide levels on produce. Both work with several states to voluntarily test produce at distribution points. And both are run out of the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, which is partially funded by industry fees and designed to promote U.S. produce.

Although both programs create data that largely affirms the safety of produce, they've drawn criticism from industry interests for their potential to share data that could harm growers. Those critics say the pathogen testing program has overstepped its original mandate to monitor pathogens in produce, collect data and calculate a baseline of contamination levels from which to measure improvement.

"Over time it got twisted and it turned into a regulatory program where they were finding contamination and turning it over to the FDA and causing recalls," said David Gombas of United Fresh Produce, a major industry association.

Sharing data with other public health agencies was part of the Microbiological Data Program's original mandate, but the spring memo from the produce growers urged the USDA to cease using the program's data "as an enforcement tool." It also alleged that past recalls have been triggered by "single samples" of contaminated produce.

Staffers with the testing program were not authorized to comment on the pending legislation, but USDA representatives stress that they don’t make decisions about whether to request a recall. The FDA does.


Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)