Bookmark and Share

 


Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
(202) 588-7741
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
(202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Dorry Samuels, Press Office Coordinator
(202) 588-7742
dsamuels@citizen.org, Twitter


Other Important links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Citizen Energy blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Myspace/publiccitizen
Facebook/publiccitizen


Follow us on Twitter


Twitter Updates

    Public Citizen | Publications - The WTO Comes to Dinner: U.S. Implementation of Trade Rules Bypasses Food Safety Requirements




     

    The WTO Comes to Dinner: U.S. Implementation of Trade Rules Bypasses Food Safety Requirements

       
     

    Read and download the full report (pdf)

    A review of U.S. government “system” audits of five nations (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Australia and Canada) reveals that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) deemed “equivalent” systems with sanitary measures that differ from FSIS policy, and in some cases, violate the express language of U.S. laws and regulations. Because FSIS has refused to respond to Public Citizen Freedom of Information Act requests for correspondence and other documentation regarding these equivalency decisions, it is impossible to determine what is the current status of these issues and whether they have been resolved by regulators.

    • The U.S. law requiring meat to be inspected by independent government officials was violated by Brazil and Mexico and they retained their eligibility to export to the United States.
    • The USDA's zero tolerance policy for contamination by feces was repeatedly violated by Australia, Canada and Mexico.
    • U.S. regulations requiring monthly supervisory reviews of plants eligible to export be conducted on behalf of USDA by foreign government officials were violated by Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, several of whom are seeking to avoid this core requirement of U.S. regulation. Monthly reviews are vitally important to remind the meat industry that the meat inspector who works the line in the plant is backed by the weight of the government and to double-check the work of meat inspectors on a regular basis.
    • Even though U.S. regulations requiring that a government official – not a company employee – sample meat for salmonella microbial contamination, the USDA approved company employees performing this task as part of an equivalency determination with Brazil and Canada.
    • Even though U.S. regulations require certain microbial testing to be performed at government labs, the U.S. approved testing by private labs as part of the equivalency determination with Brazil, Canada and Mexico.
    • Unapproved and/or improper testing procedures and sanitation violations have been re-identified by FSIS year after year for Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, but the countries have retained their eligibility to export to the United States. 
    • After its regulatory systems was designated “equivalent,” Mexico began using alternative procedures for salmonella and E. coli that had never been evaluated by FSIS, yet the country retained its eligibility to import to the United States.
    • Australia and Canada were allowed to export to the United States while using their own methods and procedures for such matters as E. coli testing, postmortem inspection, monthly supervisory reviews and pre-shipment reviews while awaiting an equivalency determination from FSIS.
    • FSIS auditors and Canadian food safety officials continue to disagree about whether particular measures have already been found “equivalent” by FSIS, yet Canadian imports remained uninterrupted.
    • The regulatory systems of Brazil and Mexico have been rated equivalent even though the countries plead insufficient personnel and monetary resources to explain their inability to carry out all required functions. 


    Copyright © 2010 Public Citizen. All rights reserved. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation.  Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


    Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

     

    Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

    Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

    You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

     

    To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
    To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.