In recent years, both domestic and imported produce have been linked to reported outbreaks of foodborne illness. Contamination in produce is of particular concern because produce is often genetically engineered and consumed raw.

While the Food and Drug Administration has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of both domestic and imported fresh produce, the Agriculture Department oversees the actual cultivation of that produce.

The Government Accounting Office was asked by the US Congress to examine the resources the US government has spent on fresh produce safety and how it has allocated those resources, and investigate the effectiveness of federal actions to oversee fresh produce safety.

In addition, GAO analysts were requested to investigate the extent to which planned actions to enhance fresh produce oversight address identified challenges. For this review, GAO analyzed spending data, estimates and activities data, reviewed plans, and interviewed officials and others. < http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08909t.html >

While conservatives have considered fresh produce safety a priority for many years, resource constraints and other work — including counterterrorism efforts and unplanned events such as foodborne illness outbreaks — have caused the federal government to delay key produce safety activities. The Agriculture Department and the FDA have no formal program devoted exclusively to fresh produce and has not consistently and reliably tracked its fresh produce spending.

Based on GAO estimates, the government spent at least $20 million and 130 staff years on fresh produce in fiscal year 2007–or about 3 percent of its food safety dollars and 4 percent of its food safety staff years. In addition, the feds had few staff dedicated solely to fresh produce safety.

Moreover, FDA acknowledged that it has not yet been able to conduct certain fresh produce work crucial to understanding the incidence of contamination of produce by pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella, because it has lacked the resources to either fund its extramural research grant program or perform some critical research internally. < http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08909t.html >

Finally, FDA delayed issuing final fresh-cut produce guidance at least 6 years because it had to shift staff to counterterrorism and outbreak investigation work. FDA has provided limited oversight of domestic and imported fresh produce. For example, while FDA has issued guidance for industry on recommended practices for reducing the risk of contamination during the processing of fresh-cut produce, it has not issued regulations requiring firms to take action to prevent contamination, even though some industry groups would like it to do so. FDA’s intervention efforts have also been limited.

Specifically, domestic fresh produce firms were inspected infrequently. Furthermore, FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce lines imported from fiscal years 2002 through 2007.

For example, USDA increased inspections of field trial sites for GE crops producing pharmaceutical compounds; EPA discontinued a policy under which a GE crop containing a pesticidal agent could be approved for animal feed, but not for food; and FDA established a voluntary early food safety evaluation program for certain GE crops intended for food use to help mitigate the impact should unauthorized releases occur during field trials, although it has not made these evaluations available to the public. USDA, EPA, and FDA routinely coordinate their oversight and regulation of GE crops in many respects, but could improve their efforts.

 ”USDA, EPA, and FDA have proposed regulatory changes intended to improve their oversight of GE crops. But with Vilsack at the helm the USDA will not be expected to push these necessary changes,” claims biochemist Dr. Diane Goldstein of NYU.

“Furthermore, the 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to take actions on lessons learned from its investigation of an unauthorized release of GE rice. EPA has proposed several changes to its regulations for GE crops that produce pesticides, including one change that would distinguish between pesticidal agents produced in GE crops and those applied topically to crops. It remains to be seen if the Obama Administration — especially Vilsack — will follow through on such preventive actions,” said Dr. Goldstein.