Registration fees eyed as funding source for food safety

Several consumer groups are lining up behind a proposal to charge food companies a registration fee as an alternative to import user fees to boost FDA's food safety budget. Consumer groups generally oppose user fees because they create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"We prefer this approach to a fee-for-service system for food inspections, where inspectors may believe they are working for the companies rather than the public," Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, wrote Wednesday in response to a question from Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Kennedy is working with committee members to write a food safety bill that many stakeholders want to address not just imports, but domestic food safety as well.

"The focus on imports is certainly appropriate, but there are enough problems with domestic food that we need a broader bill," DeWaal said. The Bush administration, along with House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., has focused on imports after pet food and fish imported from China came up contaminated last year, although other deadly outbreaks stemmed from domestic spinach and peanut butter.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dingell and two of his subcommittee chairmen have proposed bills that would tax food imports to boost FDA's funding for import inspections. DeWaal suggested instead an annual or biannual registration fee for food companies, estimating a $1,000 registration fee would rake in $322 million each collection period for FDA. Another consumer group, Food & Water Watch, opposes user fees but sees the registration fee proposal as a possible compromise, said Tony Corbo, a lobbyist with the group. Consumer Federation of America also is giving the proposal some thought, a spokesman said.

Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, said both proposals tax industry for something it already is doing. "Those companies that typically have the most facilities are the companies that are investing the lion's share in food safety," Faber said about registration fees. He noted FDA's food safety efforts saw a $56 million bump up to $513 million in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill. Faber also said GMA expects the president to request more than $600 million for food safety at FDA in fiscal 2009. FDA's Science Advisory Board found last month even an extra $250 million for food safety might not be enough to allow the agency to do its job.

In DeWaal's responses to Kennedy's questions, she wrote about third-party certification of food companies, a provision in Dingell's bill. CSPI supports the measure but only as an alternative use of additional resources, not as a way to gain more resources by pawning duties off on private companies.

"It will require start-up costs to ensure that activities done using states or private entities have the requisite reliability," DeWaal wrote. "Mandating the use of third parties would also divert scarce agency resources from FDA inspection to training, accrediting and auditing the third-party organizations."

CFA still is considering third-party certification. Food & Water Watch is opposed. "That's the government's role, and I don't want Wal-Mart determining the safety of my food. That's what it boils down to," Corbo said.