Critics pan USDA plan

Critics pan USDA plan to move food safety work to trade office

By HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH

A Trump administration plan to shift work on international food safety issues to a trade office under the supervision of a former animal-drug company executive is sparking an outcry from internal and external critics who say the move signals the U.S. is more interested in promoting exports than in science-based public health standards.

Current and former officials from both the Agriculture Department and the FDA have been raising alarm internally and publicly about the plan to take the office away from the USDA’s public health arm and give it to the agency’s newly created trade arm. At stake, they say, is the country’s status as a global leader on food safety and quality.

“I’m not so worried about my health being endangered,” said Richard Raymond, undersecretary for food safety at USDA during the George W. Bush administration, who penned a recent op-ed arguing against the change. “I’m worried about the image.”

The furor involves the USDA’s staff that manages the U.S.' participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a little-known but powerful standards-setting panel that sits under the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization and is crucial for resolving trade disputes under the WTO. The USDA’s Codex office helps formulate the positions that the U.S. promotes as a member of the more than 180-nation body.

The USDA’s decision to move the office from the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission area was little noticed when it was announced earlier this month. But now, in addition to former officials like Raymond, the FDA itself is weighing in against the move.

“FDA was recently informed of the decision to move the CODEX office and notified USDA of concerns with the proposal,” said Lauren Sucher, a spokeswoman for FDA, which works on Codex along with the USDA. “We will be sharing FDA’s view in more detail as part of written comments to USDA and we look forward to working with them to address these issues. We will evaluate whether FDA needs to adapt the agency’s relationship to CODEX pending the final outcome of USDA’s decision.”

Critics contend that the optics are especially bad because Trump has nominated Ted McKinney, a former director of global corporate affairs for Elanco, a major veterinary pharmaceutical company, to run the new trade mission at USDA. Some of the biggest fights within Codex have been over Elanco products, including ractopamine, a growth-promoting drug primarily used in pork and beef production, and rbST, an injectable drug used to boost milk production in dairy cows.

The panel is still dealing with several ongoing questions over which animal drugs are safe and at what levels residues are acceptable in meat. It’s currently mulling a residue limit for zilpaterol, another controversial growth-promoting drug similar to ractopamine that’s made by a subsidiary of Merck.

Putting a former Elanco executive like McKinney in charge "looks bad, and given all the problems that were caused by ractopamine, it makes me wonder whether the U.S. will put even more pressure to make sure zilpaterol gets through," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union and outspoken critic of biotechnology as well as several Elanco products.

Both China and the European Union argue that these drugs simply shouldn’t be used in meat production. But the U.S. is among several countries that approved it for use in livestock years ago on the grounds that it is safe and makes meat production more efficient. During both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. has been supportive of setting residue limits for drugs like ractopamine in part so that other countries will agree to import American meat.

Ractopamine was so controversial at Codex some feared the dispute could threaten the future of the standard-setting body, which generally sets food safety standards by consensus. The panel ultimately took a vote, approving a residue limit for the drug on a 69-67 vote in 2012.

Elanco declined to comment for this story. McKinney, who left Elanco in 2014, did not respond to a request for comment through a spokeswoman.

McKinney touted moving Codex under the trade purview last week during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"I anticipate investing significant time in many foreign countries building trust, opening doors for farmers,” said McKinney, who currently serves as Indiana agriculture director.

Jason Hafemeister, acting deputy undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, defended the move against the suggestion that it created an inherent conflict in Codex officials’ mission.

“We don't see a conflict between the two," Hafemeister said, explaining that the dual mission of the Codex office, to ensure health and safety and come up with commercial standards, will remain the same. "We think the very bedrock of these standards has to be credible, science-based."

Hafemeister said the move makes particular sense in light of the increased politicization of the Codex process, with the European Union and others trying to block standards for non-science reasons. "We need to raise our game in how we organize ourselves,” he said.

But critics are still raising questions about whether the U.S. now risks looking like it's catering more to business interests than to science.

In addition to Raymond, two other former food safety officials have panned the move, either publicly or in comments to the government: Michael Taylor, former deputy commissioner for foods at FDA during the Obama administration, and Brian Ronholm, who was deputy undersecretary for food safety during the Obama administration.

They argue that having Codex officials report to trade officials, whose No. 1 goal is to expand exports, and not food safety officials, whose top goal is protecting public health, is not a good message to send to the international community, which already criticizes the U.S. for being too cozy with industry.

U.S. officials already have to push back against the perception that agribusiness runs the show, Raymond said in an interview. “They’re going to have a harder time arguing that,” he said.

“The cartoonists can really have a ball with this,” he added.

Taylor, who served as one of the highest-ranking food safety officials at FDA under President Barack Obama as well as at USDA under President Bill Clinton, submitted a comment to the docket urging the USDA to withdraw its plan.

“This unexpected move threatens the scientific credibility of the United States in Codex proceedings,” wrote Taylor, in a comment that hasn’t yet posted to the docket. “There has been no dialogue on this proposal with the broad food safety community and no explanation from USDA of the problem the proposed reorganization solves.”

Taylor, who is currently focused on food safety development in Africa, further argued that anything that undermines Codex and the standards it creates would have “significant negative consequences in Africa and other developing regions.”

Food industry leaders have gone on the record in support of moving the Codex office. The Food Industry Codex Coalition sent a letter on Sept. 18 praising the move, with nearly all the major food industry trade groups as signees, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, CropLife America, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Beverage Association.

The letter contends that the move will elevate Codex within the government and “strengthen” U.S. leadership to both protect public health and “guard against unscientific barriers that impede U.S. food and agriculture trade.”

"First and foremost, the mandate of Codex is a clear dual mandate to develop and implement science-based standards and promote fair trade,” said Melissa San Miguel, GMA senior director of global strategies, in an interview. “We see the two things as parallel.”

"Our industry has a long commitment to science-based standards,” she added. “We are totally confident that USDA is going to keep that commitment and that basis on science."