The agency’s move has food safety advocates concerned that the government has weakened its ability to respond to foodborne illness outbreaks.
“This move, along with the steep budget and staffing cuts at the USDA and FDA, appears to be part of an overall effort to weaken food safety oversight,” says Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports. “What it means for consumers is that ‘you’re on your own’ in figuring out how the food safety system is going to work for you. Ultimately, it’s an unfair burden.”
CR’s food safety experts have long called for the USDA to declare salmonella an adulterant in raw poultry, as the agency has done for deadly, toxin-producing strains of E. coli, such as E. coli O157:H7, in ground beef. Doing so proved to be a major boost to public health, and cut the number of E. coli cases linked to ground beef significantly, Ronholm says.
Sandy Eskin, CEO of Stop Foodborne Illness, a consumer advocacy organization, said, “It would not be surprising if there is at least one major foodborne illness outbreak linked to poultry in the next three or four years. And every outbreak corrodes consumer confidence in the food supply.” Eskin, former deputy undersecretary of food safety at FSIS, was involved in creating the proposed rule. “The government is supposed to ensure that industry is doing everything it can to make safe products,” she says. “But why are companies allowed to sell highly contaminated products?”
The National Chicken Council opposed the rule, saying at the time that it was “based on a mischaracterization of the presence of Salmonella in raw poultry, relies on misinterpretations of the science, and is legally unsound.” In a statement in response to the USDA withdrawing its rule, the council said it “appreciated” the announcement. “We remain committed to further reducing salmonella and fully support food safety regulations and policies that are based on sound science, robust data, and are demonstrated to meaningfully impact public health,” the statement said.
Source link
