logo
FDA Considers Scaling Back Inspections, Raising Questions About Food Safety

FDA Considers Scaling Back Inspections, Raising Questions About Food Safety

Yahoo23-04-2025

The FDA is considering reducing its routine food safety inspections and shifting more responsibility to state agencies.
However, critics are concerned that this action could undermine oversight and transparency, particularly in light of recent agency controversies, such as the lack of transparency over a recent E. coli outbreak.
While states already conduct many inspections, some are not under FDA contracts, raising questions about consistency and safety.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may soon scale back its routine food safety inspections, shifting even more responsibility to state authorities.
According to multiple federal health officials who spoke with CBS News, the FDA may soon further outsource the responsibility for food safety inspections to state authorities. This plan, shared by both a former and a current FDA official, has actually been a possibility for years under multiple administrations as a way to free up resources for higher-priority inspections.
"There's so much work to go around. And us duplicating their work just doesn't make sense," a former FDA official, who explained that they worked on the plans, told CBS.
It's important to note that the FDA already outsources a significant portion of its inspection tasks to states, particularly those considered low-risk. The agency even clearly states on its website, "The FDA may conduct inspections using its own investigators or State partnering agencies acting on behalf of the FDA, or they may be conducted by foreign countries with whom we have Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or similar agreements."
Related: RFK Jr. Is Cutting 10,000 Jobs Across US Health Agencies — Here's What It Means
The FDA additionally explained that it "trains the state inspectors who conduct these inspections to ensure consistency in our inspectional approaches" and provides states with information and findings from its federal-level inspections to aid individual state work. It added, "Some states also conduct non-contract inspections, which supports the integrated food safety system. States provide the FDA with inspection data via this voluntary program."
The FDA, CBS reported, currently outsources some routine food inspections through contracts with 43 states and Puerto Rico. A January report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, under the Biden administration, indicated that approximately one-third of all inspections are already conducted at the state level.
What remains unclear is what happens to the several states currently not under an FDA contract. However, advocacy groups, including the Consumer Brands Association and the Food Safety Coalition, have previously called for more state oversight. They expressed this in an open letter, "... States provide additional inspection capacity and often can do inspections at a lower cost. [The] FDA should leverage States that can perform FDA-audited equivalent inspections and expand the FDA workforce in those areas where states do not have the needed capacity."
CBS also noted that Steve Mandernach, executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, has stated in the past that "FDA audits have determined state inspections to be high quality, and the costs show them to be a good economic value. There is significant cost to managing two systems, also."
However, this news comes at a rather inopportune time for the FDA, which is facing criticism after NBC released its story on how the agency quietly buried a report on a November E. coli outbreak that killed at least one person. NBC obtained an internal report showing that the FDA would not be naming the companies responsible and that 'There were no public communications related to this outbreak."
Related: Experts Warn of Public Health Risks as the Trump Administration Eliminates 2 Critical Food Safety Committees
This move to protect the responsible parties rather than the public, Frank Yiannas, the former deputy commissioner of food policy and response at the FDA, told NBC, was alarming. 'It is disturbing that the FDA hasn't said anything more public or identified the name of a grower or processor,' Yiannas said. However, as NBC also noted, the agency is not required by law to reveal the details of the investigation.
It has also been a difficult time at the FDA, following the steep layoffs of support staff. These layoffs have led the agency to announce that it will suspend quality control programs at food testing laboratories due to the staff reductions.
"In theory, relying on states to do more routine food inspection work could lead to better food safety," Thomas Gremillion, the director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, shared with CBS. However, Gremillion added, "So far, this administration has acted with reckless disregard for how its policies will affect the detection and prevention of foodborne illness, and any plans to replace federal food inspectors with some other workforce deserve suspicion."
Read the original article on Food & Wine

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Breakthrough procedure helps prevent amputations for Sacramento area patients
Breakthrough procedure helps prevent amputations for Sacramento area patients

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Breakthrough procedure helps prevent amputations for Sacramento area patients

( — A breakthrough surgery helping save limbs and lives took place in Sacramento on Wednesday morning. The procedure aims to treat people suffering from Peripheral Artery Disease. PAD is a serious and rarely-treated circulatory condition that restricts blood flow to the limbs due to narrowed blood vessels. It kills more people than breast, colon, and prostate cancer combined. 'Plaque that builds up in these arteries causes not only hardening of the arteries but also plaque in these blood vessels,' said Dr. Inder Singh, an interventional cardiovascular specialist at TLC Vascular. When blood can't flow properly, minor wounds can become dangerous. They can lead to infection and, in some cases, amputation. Michaels Distributing Center in San Joaquin County set to close, affecting over 200 jobs 'If they get an injury or they get a wound or they get a scratch, those will not heal because they don't have enough, adequate perfusion to heal those wounds,' Dr. Singh said. Helping to change patient outcomes, Dr. Singh is now performing a first-of-its-kind procedure using a newly FDA-cleared removable stent called SPUR. 'The idea with it is that basically that kind of treatment that deep penetrates into the tissue and treats it, it will prevent future closure or at least prolong the time from when the blood vessels close,' said Dr. Singh. 'Enabling the patients to be able to heal their wounds, which is really the main outcome we're looking for.' is the first in the Sacramento area to use SPUR, designed specifically for the small, fragile arteries below the knee. Unlike a traditional stent, the spur temporarily holds the vessel open and then is removed, leaving nothing behind. Charges filed against former Cal Fire employee in child pornography case 'We can see somebody on an outpatient basis one day and actually fix a problem rather than put a band-aid on, you know, the incorrect problem,' said Shelby Adney, a nurse practitioner at TLC Vascular. It's an innovative procedure now preventing amputations, healing wounds, and maintaining patients' normal lives. 'Once you can preserve that and heal their wounds… they get their life back,' Dr. Singh said. 'They're ambulatory. They can spend time with their family. You can do a lot of things that most people expect to do.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Australia 'confident' in US nuclear sub deal despite review
Australia 'confident' in US nuclear sub deal despite review

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Australia 'confident' in US nuclear sub deal despite review

Australia said Thursday it is "very confident" in the future of a US agreement to equip its navy with a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, after the Trump administration put the pact under review. The 2021 AUKUS deal joins Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States in a multi-decade effort to balance China's growing military might. It aims to arm Australia with a fleet of cutting-edge, nuclear-powered submarines from the United States, and cooperate in developing an array of warfare technologies. US President Donald Trump's administration has advised Australia and the United Kingdom that it is reviewing AUKUS, a spokesperson for the Australian Defence Department confirmed Thursday. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he was "very confident" Australia would still get the American submarines. "I think the review that's been announced is not a surprise," he told public broadcaster ABC. "We've been aware of this for some time. We welcome it. It's something which is perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do." Australia plans to acquire at least three Virginia Class submarines from the United States within 15 years, eventually manufacturing its own subs. - 'Time to wake up?' - The US navy has 24 Virginia-class vessels, which can carry cruise missiles, but American shipyards are struggling to meet production targets set at two new boats each year. Critics question why the United States would sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia without stocking its own military first. Marles said boosting the US production of US Virginia Class submarines was a challenge. "That's why we are working very closely with the United States on seeing that happen. But that is improving," he said. Government forecasts estimate the submarine programme alone could cost Australia up to US$235 billion over the next 30 years, a price tag that has contributed to criticism of the strategy. Australia should conduct its own review of AUKUS, said former conservative prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, noting that Britain and now the United States had each decided to re-examine the pact. "Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?," he posted on X. Former Labor Party prime minister Paul Keating, a vehement critic of AUKUS, said the US review might "save Australia from itself". Australia should carve its own security strategy "rather than being dragged along on the coat tails of a fading Atlantic empire", Keating said. - 'Good deal for the US' - Any US review of AUKUS carries a risk, particularly since it is a Biden-era initiative, said Euan Graham, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. But it is "fundamentally a good deal for the US", he said, with Australia already investing cash to boost American submarine production as part of the agreement. "I just do not think it is realistic for Australia, this far backed in, to have any prospect of withdrawing itself from AUKUS," Graham told AFP. "I don't think there is a plan B that would meet requirements, and I think it would shred Australia's reputation fundamentally in a way that would not be recoverable." djw/lec/hmn

Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts questions, concerns about politicization of military
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts questions, concerns about politicization of military

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts questions, concerns about politicization of military

WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says. This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store