The U.S. food safety system and core tenets of the Food Safety Modernization Act are in question as the Food and Drug Administration plans to reduce the amount of grants to state partners to carry out food safety inspection, advocacy groups say.
Passage of FSMA in 2011 gave FDA and states the opportunity to collaborate to meet one joint public health goal and work toward building an integrated food safety system.
Over the last several years, FDA has been able to use carryover funds to bolster state food safety inspection programs. However, given a tighter budget, the agency has begun warning states they may receive less for such programs starting in 2025.
Groups representing consumers and state governments say the budget plans for 2025 mean a de facto cut in essential state programs that are already underfunded. Without intervention, the loss of funds could mean fewer inspections and make the goals of FSMA impossible to meet.
“The core tenet of FSMA is the concept of an integrated food safety system, which is partially supported by the federal government. This abandons that portion of FSMA,” said Steven Mandernach, executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials. “You might as well repeal the law with this.”
Mandernach first learned the FDA intended to move forward with the reallocation of funds in February. Public disclosure came at a recent House Appropriations subcommittee hearing with FDA Commissioner Robert Califf.
Over the last several years, FDA has been able to pull about $34 million in excess funds annually for states in addition to already appropriated dollars. This means state food safety programs have grown accustomed to receiving a total of about $118 million annually.
“So, we’ve gone beyond what was appropriated to support the states," Califf told lawmakers. "What we’ve done is to let the states know that fiscal times are tighter. We don’t have excess money to move around to meet needs. We have a lot of needs and a growing number of things we have to look out for."
States conduct about 5,700 human food and about 1,000 feed inspections annually under FDA contract, said Joe Reardon, senior director of food safety programs at the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).
FDA relies on states for 50% of its food manufacturer contract inspections, 70% of the animal food contract inspections and 90% of produce inspections, Mandernach said. All retail, restaurant and grocery store inspections are also covered by the states.
FDA Commissioner Robert CaliffState inspections are more efficient and less costly than FDA inspections, said Sarah Sorscher, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Local partners tend to know the landscape of companies better and are often conducting their own inspections alongside federally funded ones, she said.
The extra funds provided to the states over the past several years have built some “core capacities,” NASDA's Reardon said. This includes 23 rapid response teams that identify recalled products and work with state governments in partnership with FDA to remove those items from the marketplace.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
States have also used the added funds to build capacity and to accredit state labs. In 2010, only three state labs were accredited, Reardon said. Now there are 53.
FSMA mandates inspection of low-risk facilities once every five years and high-risk facilities every three years, CSPI's Sorscher said. After the recent infant formula outbreak, FDA committed to inspect such facilities annually.
States have struggled to keep up with statutory demands while ensuring they can follow up at facilities where problems are found, she said. As with others in the food industry, they are challenged to find and keep qualified inspectors. These issues are exacerbated by a lack of consistent funding, and the anticipated cuts will add pressure, she added.
“These cuts could not come at a more unfortunate time,” Reardon said. “It really could set back our joint public health goals for more than a decade.”
Many states may elect not to continue in the agency’s food contract program, advocates fear. If states drop out, FDA will have to complete the inspections at additional cost.
Even before news of the funding decrease came out, at least seven states indicated they were considering leaving the program, Mandernach said. These cuts would only expedite that process, which puts American consumers “in a bad situation,” he said.
Sorscher pointed to the infant formula outbreak as a cautionary tale of what can happen if inspectors don’t visit a facility for years. She said food safety issues can “simmer” and then “can erupt in an outbreak.”
Rapid response teams may cease to exist without adequate funding, Reardon said. State labs could also struggle to keep accreditation, weakening their credibility.
“We're going to have fewer samples to detect potentially problematic things that are getting into the market and the problematic imports,” Mandernach said. “All across the board, this reduces food safety.”
While the actual reductions in funds won’t take effect until 2026, states may begin to feel the impacts immediately, Mandernach said. States could start taking proactive measures like not filling positions or reducing the workload because of anticipated cuts.
FDA has a general budget, with wide discretion over the foods program, Mandernach said. A line item in the budget ensuring states are protected would be helpful, he said.
Mandernach has been encouraged by conversations with members of Congress and believes they understand the importance of state programs in maintaining food safety. Industry, consumer, state and local groups all agree that the cuts would be problematic.
NASDA and other organizations are beginning to contact appropriators with the hope Congress will adequately fund FDA so the agency can fully support state work. NASDA believes it will take about $170 million annually to adequately fund state inspectors.
Sorscher acknowledged the agency is in a difficult position, and while FDA could have made other cuts to the food program to maintain state support, the real issue is the lack of adequate funding. She argued for Congress to give the food program a larger budget.
The Alliance for a Stronger FDA, a coalition of industry and consumer advocacy groups, agrees the agency needs more funding. The alliance says the White House request for fiscal 2025 falls short, putting its own ask at $214 million more than the budget request.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
