School Meal Programs
More Systematic Development of Specifications Could Improve the Safety of Foods Purchased through USDA's Commodity Program Gao ID: GAO-11-376 May 3, 2011Through its commodity program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides commodity foods at no cost to schools taking part in the national school meals programs. Commodities include raw ground beef, cheese, poultry, and fresh produce. Like federal food safety agencies, the commodity program has taken steps designed to reduce microbial contamination that can result in severe illness. GAO was asked to review (1) the extent to which the program's purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination differ from federal regulations, (2) the extent to which specifications for raw ground beef differ from those imposed by some other large purchasers, and (3) examples of schools' practices to help ensure that food is not contaminated. GAO compared the program's purchasing specifications to federal regulations for food sold commercially, gathered information from seven large purchasers of ground beef, and interviewed officials in 18 school districts in five states, selected in part because of their purchasing practices.
For 7 of the approximately 180 commodity foods offered to schools, USDA's commodity program has established purchasing specifications with respect to microbial contamination that are more stringent than the federal regulations for the same foods in the commercial marketplace. For example, the commodity program will not purchase ground beef that tests positive for Salmonella bacteria, while federal regulations for commercially available ground beef tolerate the presence of a certain amount of Salmonella. Program officials told GAO that more-stringent specifications are needed for certain foods they purchase because they go to populations, such as very young children, at a higher risk for serious complications from foodborne illnesses. However, the program has not developed more-stringent specifications for some pathogens and foods that have been associated with foodborne illness, such as raw, whole chickens cut into eight pieces that the program provides to schools. Program officials told GAO they selected products for more-stringent specifications based on their views of the safety risk associated with different types of food; developed these specifications through informal consultation with a variety of groups; and did not document the process they used. The commodity program's purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for raw ground beef at various processing stages are generally similar to those of some other large purchasers. The specifications used by both the commodity program and these large purchasers are more stringent than federal regulations. USDA's commodity program has several purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for raw ground beef production, process oversight, and testing. For example, the program requires beef suppliers to take actions to reduce the level of pathogens at least twice while beef carcasses are processed. Some large purchasers of raw ground beef have purchasing specifications similar to the commodity program, although they differ in certain details. For example, of the seven large purchasers that GAO interviewed, five said they require their beef suppliers to take between two and seven actions to reduce pathogen levels on beef carcasses. While all school districts must follow certain food safety practices to participate in federally funded school meal programs, school districts that GAO interviewed have also implemented a number of additional food safety practices. Federal regulations require school districts to develop written food safety plans and to obtain food safety inspections of their schools, among other things. In addition, some of the school districts GAO interviewed have established purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination or food safety for food they purchase in the commercial marketplace, among other things. Nevertheless, few of the district officials GAO interviewed were aware that the commodity program's purchasing specifications for seven products are more stringent than federal regulatory requirements. Officials from half of the districts GAO interviewed said that greater knowledge of these differences would affect their future purchasing decisions by enabling them to make more informed choices. GAO recommends, among other things, that USDA strengthen its oversight of food purchased by its commodity program, by establishing a more systematic and transparent process to determine whether additional specifications should be developed related to microbial contamination. USDA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and provided technical comments.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Lisa R. Shames Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-2649GAO-11-376, School Meal Programs: More Systematic Development of Specifications Could Improve the Safety of Foods Purchased through USDA's Commodity Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-376
entitled 'School Meal Programs: More Systematic Development of
Specifications Could Improve the Safety of Foods Purchased through
USDA's Commodity Program' which was released on May 3, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, House of Representatives:
May 2011:
School Meal Programs:
More Systematic Development of Specifications Could Improve the Safety
of Foods Purchased through USDA's Commodity Program:
GAO-11-376:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-376, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Through its commodity program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) provides commodity foods at no cost to schools taking part in
the national school meals programs. Commodities include raw ground
beef, cheese, poultry, and fresh produce. Like federal food safety
agencies, the commodity program has taken steps designed to reduce
microbial contamination that can result in severe illness.
GAO was asked to review (1) the extent to which the program‘s
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination differ
from federal regulations, (2) the extent to which specifications for
raw ground beef differ from those imposed by some other large
purchasers, and (3) examples of schools‘ practices to help ensure that
food is not contaminated. GAO compared the program‘s purchasing
specifications to federal regulations for food sold commercially,
gathered information from seven large purchasers of ground beef, and
interviewed officials in 18 school districts in five states, selected
in part because of their purchasing practices.
What GAO Found:
For 7 of the approximately 180 commodity foods offered to schools, USDA‘
s commodity program has established purchasing specifications with
respect to microbial contamination that are more stringent than the
federal regulations for the same foods in the commercial marketplace.
For example, the commodity program will not purchase ground beef that
tests positive for Salmonella bacteria, while federal regulations for
commercially available ground beef tolerate the presence of a certain
amount of Salmonella. Program officials told GAO that more-stringent
specifications are needed for certain foods they purchase because they
go to populations, such as very young children, at a higher risk for
serious complications from foodborne illnesses. However, the program
has not developed more-stringent specifications for some pathogens and
foods that have been associated with foodborne illness, such as raw,
whole chickens cut into eight pieces that the program provides to
schools. Program officials told GAO they selected products for more-
stringent specifications based on their views of the safety risk
associated with different types of food; developed these
specifications through informal consultation with a variety of groups;
and did not document the process they used.
The commodity program‘s purchasing specifications related to microbial
contamination for raw ground beef at various processing stages are
generally similar to those of some other large purchasers. The
specifications used by both the commodity program and these large
purchasers are more stringent than federal regulations. USDA‘s
commodity program has several purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination for raw ground beef production, process
oversight, and testing. For example, the program requires beef
suppliers to take actions to reduce the level of pathogens at least
twice while beef carcasses are processed. Some large purchasers of raw
ground beef have purchasing specifications similar to the commodity
program, although they differ in certain details. For example, of the
seven large purchasers that GAO interviewed, five said they require
their beef suppliers to take between two and seven actions to reduce
pathogen levels on beef carcasses.
While all school districts must follow certain food safety practices
to participate in federally funded school meal programs, school
districts that GAO interviewed have also implemented a number of
additional food safety practices. Federal regulations require school
districts to develop written food safety plans and to obtain food
safety inspections of their schools, among other things. In addition,
some of the school districts GAO interviewed have established
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination or food
safety for food they purchase in the commercial marketplace, among
other things. Nevertheless, few of the district officials GAO
interviewed were aware that the commodity program‘s purchasing
specifications for seven products are more stringent than federal
regulatory requirements. Officials from half of the districts GAO
interviewed said that greater knowledge of these differences would
affect their future purchasing decisions by enabling them to make more
informed choices.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends, among other things, that USDA strengthen its oversight
of food purchased by its commodity program, by establishing a more
systematic and transparent process to determine whether additional
specifications should be developed related to microbial contamination.
USDA generally agreed with GAO‘s recommendations and provided
technical comments.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-376] or key
components. For more information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-
3841 or shamesl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Federal Purchasing Specifications for Seven Foods in the Commodity
Program Are More Stringent Than Federal Regulations for Those Foods in
the Commercial Marketplace:
The Commodity Program's Specifications for Raw Ground Beef Are
Generally Similar to Those of Some Other Large Purchasers:
School Districts Have Adopted a Variety of Food Safety Practices to
Help Ensure That Food Served in Schools Is Safe:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Pathogens Responsible for Most Foodborne Illnesses with a
Known Bacterial Cause That Are Also in USDA's Regulatory Oversight and
Purchasing Specifications:
Table 2: Seven Commodity Program Foods with Purchasing Specifications
Related to Microbial Contamination That Are More Stringent Than
Federal Regulations:
Abbreviations:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FDA: Food and Drug Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 3, 2011:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Miller:
The National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs are federally
assisted programs that provide low-cost or free meals to more than 30
million children each school day in over 100,000 schools nationwide.
Schools taking part in the programs receive cash subsidies and food
provided at no cost, known as "commodities," from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA). In recent years, USDA's commodity program has
purchased over $1 billion worth of about 180 commodities annually,
including raw ground beef, poultry, and mozzarella cheese, and offered
them to schools. In addition, under an agreement between USDA and the
Department of Defense (DOD), schools may choose to receive fresh
produce, such as apples, lettuce, and baby carrots, purchased by DOD
for the commodity program. All told, food provided at no cost by the
commodity program provides about 15 to 20 percent of the food served
in schools, while the remaining 80 to 85 percent is purchased directly
by schools in the commercial marketplace. Like the rest of the
nation's food supply, the food served in schools is generally safe,
although vulnerable to microbial contamination that can result in
illnesses, ranging from relatively mild to life-threatening or even
fatal conditions.
USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) both have federal
regulatory and oversight responsibilities to, among other things, help
ensure the food industry's compliance with preventive measures
designed to reduce or eliminate foodborne, disease-causing organisms,
known as pathogens. Agencies within USDA regulate the production of
meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and FDA issues regulations
to ensure the safety of all other foods, including fruits, vegetables,
milk, and whole-shell eggs. Virtually all food for sale in the
commercial marketplace is subject to federal regulation and oversight,
including testing for pathogens by federal inspectors and setting
limits on the levels of pathogens detectable in certain foods.
In addition, the commodity program, as the purchaser of the food that
USDA provides at no cost to schools, has established purchasing
specifications for each of the commodities it buys. Some of these
specifications are designed to prevent harmful pathogens and limit the
allowable level of certain bacteria that indicate poor sanitary
handling or preparation conditions in specific commodities. These
specifications apply to foods that are commonly provided to schools.
Many of these same foods have also been associated with foodborne
illness, such as raw ground beef. In addition, large purchasers of
food, such as grocery store and restaurant chains, may include in
contracts with their suppliers specifications designed to prevent,
reduce, or eliminate microbial contamination.
In light of the potential for microbial contamination of food served
in schools, you asked us to examine the standards and procedures that
exist to ensure the safety of food in school meal programs.
Accordingly, our objectives were to examine (1) the extent to which
federal purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination
for food in the commodity program differ from federal regulations for
the same foods available in the commercial marketplace; (2) the extent
to which the commodity program's purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination for raw ground beef differ from those imposed
by some large federal and private-sector purchasers; and (3) examples
of standards and practices that exist at the state and school district
level to help ensure that food procured by schools is safe.
To address these objectives, we obtained documentation of USDA's
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for food
in the commodity program, discussed these specifications with federal
officials, as well as with knowledgeable groups and individuals--
including representatives of industry associations and consumer
groups--and compared the specifications with federal regulations for
food sold in the commercial marketplace. We also compared the
commodity program's purchasing specifications for raw ground beef to
information we gathered on the raw ground beef specifications used by
a nonprobability sample of six large private-sector purchasers--
including grocery store chains and quick-service restaurants--and one
large federal purchaser, and analyzed the findings of a study of
USDA's specifications. In addition, we visited and held telephone
conferences with a nonprobability sample of officials in five states
and 18 school districts selected because of their size; indications of
a prior experience with foodborne illnesses; or other factors,
including use of a food service management company and participation
in a food-buying cooperative. The results from these states and
districts cannot be generalized to other states and districts.
Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our objectives,
scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2010 to May 2011, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
According to USDA, the National School Lunch Program and the National
School Breakfast Program share the goals of improving children's
nutrition, increasing lower-income children's access to nutritious
meals, and supporting the agricultural economy. USDA's commodity
program contracts for the purchase of food for these programs with
manufacturers that it selects through a competitive bidding process.
At the state level, state education departments typically administer
the meals programs and forward the commodity selections of individual
schools to USDA's commodity program, which purchases and distributes
the food selected by schools. In 2009, schools most commonly ordered
chicken, mozzarella cheese, potatoes, and ground beef items purchased
by the commodity program, in addition to fresh produce purchased for
the commodity program by DOD in conjunction with DOD's large-scale
efforts to supply fresh produce to its troops. Overall, USDA provides
about 15 to 20 percent of the food served in school meals. Schools
purchase the remainder independently using their own procurement
practices, either purchasing foods directly from manufacturers or
distributors or contracting with food service management companies
that procure the food for them.
Three agencies within USDA are primarily responsible for the planning,
purchase, allocation, and distribution of commodities to states and
school districts: the Food and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural
Marketing Service, and the Farm Service Agency (referred to
collectively in this report as USDA's commodity program). In addition
to administering the National School Lunch Program and the National
School Breakfast Program, the Food and Nutrition Service has overall
authority to administer USDA's commodity program and coordinate all
commodity orders submitted by states. The Agricultural Marketing
Service purchases meats, poultry, seafood, fruits, and vegetables;
while the Farm Service Agency purchases dairy products, grains, peanut
products, and other items.
Virtually all food for sale in the United States must comply with
federal food safety laws and regulations. Federal efforts for ensuring
food safety include focusing on preventing or reducing contamination
by bacterial pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7, a toxin-producing
strain of the intestinal bacterium E. coli; Salmonella; and
Campylobacter; and monitoring levels of other bacteria, such as
generic E. coli and fecal coliforms, which indicate the extent to
which food was produced under sanitary conditions. USDA, through its
Food Safety and Inspection Service (referred to throughout this report
as USDA's meat and poultry regulatory program), is responsible for
ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and
FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of virtually all other food
products, including grains, nuts, and produce. GAO has reported that
federal oversight of food safety remains fragmented in several areas,
and that this fragmentation has caused inconsistent oversight,
ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.[Footnote
1] Existing statutes give these agencies different regulatory and
enforcement authorities. For example, food products under USDA's
jurisdiction must generally be inspected and approved as meeting
federal standards before being sold to the public. Under current law,
thousands of regulatory inspectors of meat and poultry are to maintain
continuous inspection at slaughter facilities and examine all
slaughtered meat and poultry carcasses. They also visit other meat-and
poultry-processing facilities at least once each operating day. FDA is
responsible for ensuring that all foods it regulates are safe,
wholesome, and properly labeled. To carry out its responsibilities,
FDA has authority to, among other things, conduct examinations and
investigations and inspect food facilities. But unlike foods regulated
by USDA, food products under FDA's jurisdiction may be marketed
without FDA's prior approval. For fresh cut fruits and vegetables, FDA
has issued guidance, which food manufacturers may voluntarily use to
minimize microbial contamination. FDA has also established regulations
that serve as the minimum sanitary and processing requirements and may
take enforcement actions against firms that do not comply with these
requirements. Under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the agency
is required to promulgate regulations for produce safety that would
establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production and
harvesting of certain raw fruits and vegetables for which FDA
determines such standards could minimize the risk of serious adverse
health consequences or death.
While food may be contaminated by many different bacteria, viruses,
parasites, toxins, and chemicals, this report focuses on disease-
causing, or pathogenic, bacteria. Contamination may take place during
any of the many steps in growing, processing, storing, and preparing
foods. Some potentially life-threatening pathogens live in soil,
water, or the intestinal tracts of healthy birds, domestic animals,
and wildlife. As a result, produce may become contaminated if
irrigated with tainted water, and the carcasses of livestock and
poultry may become contaminated during slaughter if they come into
contact with small amounts of intestinal contents. Foods that mingle
the products of many individual animals--such as bulk raw milk, pooled
raw eggs, or raw ground beef--are particularly susceptible, because a
pathogen from any one of the animals may contaminate the entire batch.
A single hamburger, for example, may contain meat from hundreds of
animals. Pathogens can also be introduced later in the process--such
as after cooking, but before packaging--or by unsanitary conditions--
including contact with infected food handlers or contact with
contaminated equipment or surfaces. Still, pathogens are generally
destroyed when foods are properly cooked. In addition, the presence of
pathogens can be greatly reduced by subjecting food to ionizing
radiation, known as food irradiation. On the basis of extensive
scientific studies and the opinions of experts, we reported in 2000
that the benefits of food irradiation outweigh the risks.[Footnote 2]
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
foodborne disease is a major cause of illness and death in the United
States. CDC routinely gathers information from local and state health
departments and laboratories and reports information about a range of
foodborne illnesses and the foods with which they are associated. In
2011, CDC estimated that approximately 48 million people become sick,
128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne
diseases.[Footnote 3] CDC attributed about 90 percent of the
illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths having a known cause to eight
pathogens, including four bacteria--Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli
O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes--that are included in USDA's
regulatory oversight of meat and poultry and in the purchasing
specifications of USDA's commodity program (see table 1). The four
other pathogens are norovirus, Clostridium perfringens, and
Staphylococcus aureus--which are most often spread by improper food
handling or contamination by infected food handlers--and Toxoplasma
gondii, a parasite commonly found in people and the environment that
typically does not result in illness. The commodity program requires
testing for Staphylococcus aureus as an indicator of poor sanitary
handling or preparation conditions in raw ground beef, diced cooked
chicken, and baby carrots.
Table 1: Pathogens Responsible for Most Foodborne Illnesses with a
Known Bacterial Cause That Are Also in USDA's Regulatory Oversight and
Purchasing Specifications:
Bacterial pathogen: Salmonella species;
Source: A group of bacteria that live in various animals, especially
poultry and swine. Environmental sources of the organism include
water, soil, animal feces, raw meats, and raw poultry;
Affected population and symptoms: Can be life-threatening in
vulnerable individuals, including infants, the elderly, and those with
compromised immune systems. Symptoms include fever, diarrhea, and
abdominal cramps;
Associated foods: Undercooked eggs, poultry, or meat, and
unpasteurized dairy products.
Bacterial pathogen: Campylobacter;
Source: A group of bacteria that live in the intestines of healthy
birds, including poultry, and other animals;
Affected population and symptoms: Can be life-threatening among immune-
compromised individuals, although most people recover fully. Children
under 5 years of age and young adults (ages 15 to 29) are more
frequently afflicted than other age groups. Symptoms include diarrhea,
abdominal pain, and fever;
Associated foods: Undercooked meat, poultry, and unpasteurized milk,
or food contaminated with juices from raw or undercooked meat or
poultry.
Bacterial pathogen: E. coli O157:H7;
Source: A strain of a group of bacteria that inhabits the guts of
ruminant animals (such as cattle) without making them sick. One of
several strains of E. coli that emit a toxin in humans that, in about
3 to 5 percent of infections, can cause a severe kidney disease;
Affected population and symptoms: Young children and the elderly
develop severe illness more than others. Can produce severe bloody
diarrhea, profuse bleeding, kidney failure, seizures, coma, and death;
Associated foods: Food or water contaminated with microscopic amounts
of feces from cattle or other animals. Outbreaks have been linked to
undercooked ground beef, dairy products, and produce.
Bacterial pathogen: Listeria monocytogenes;
Source: A group of bacteria found in the environment, such as in soil
and water, which animals can carry without appearing ill. It has been
found in at least 37 species of mammals, at least 17 species of birds,
and some species of fish and shellfish;
Affected population and symptoms: Pregnant women, newborns, the
elderly, and those with compromised immune systems are most at risk.
Can lead to fever, nausea, diarrhea, miscarriage, stillbirth, and
death;
Associated foods: Contaminated raw foods, like uncooked meats,
vegetables, unpasteurized milk, or ready-to-eat hot dogs or deli meats
that are contaminated after cooking but before packaging. The
bacteria's ability to grow at cold temperatures allows them to grow in
refrigerated foods.
Source: GAO analysis of CDC, FDA, and USDA information.
[End of table]
Information reported to CDC shows hundreds of instances of foodborne
outbreaks affecting children in schools during a recent 10-year
period. An outbreak occurs when two or more similar illnesses result
from the consumption of a common food. According to CDC documents,
many clusters of illnesses are not investigated or reported to CDC
because of, among other reasons, competing priorities at state and
local health agencies, and because only a small proportion of all
foodborne illnesses reported each year are identified as associated
with outbreaks. Nevertheless, based on CDC's outbreak data for the 10
years from 1999 through 2008 (the most recent year for which data are
available), we identified 478 foodborne outbreaks, affecting at least
10,770 children, that were associated with schools. Although these
outbreaks were associated with foods prepared or consumed at schools,
they do not all relate to food served as part of school meal programs.
For example, the implicated food may have been prepared at home and
consumed at school as part of an event. Nevertheless, the number of
outbreaks associated with schools represents about 4 percent of the
approximately 12,000 foodborne outbreaks reported to CDC during that
period by state and local public health agencies. As with foodborne
disease outbreaks generally, most outbreaks associated with schools
could not be attributed to a single contaminated ingredient, and many
outbreaks' association with a pathogen could not be confirmed by a
laboratory. We found that Salmonella was among the most common
bacterial pathogens identified as causing outbreaks associated with
schools. Moreover, when outbreaks associated with schools could be
linked to a specific food, they were most commonly associated with
contaminated ingredients such as poultry, fruits, grain and bean
products, dairy, beef, leafy vegetables, and pork.[Footnote 4]
Federal Purchasing Specifications for Seven Foods in the Commodity
Program Are More Stringent Than Federal Regulations for Those Foods in
the Commercial Marketplace:
For seven of the foods it purchases, the commodity program's
specifications related to microbial contamination are more stringent
than federal regulations for those foods in the commercial
marketplace. Nevertheless, the program's more-stringent purchasing
specifications may not apply to all foods and pathogens of concern.
For Seven Foods, the Commodity Program's Specifications Related to
Microbial Contamination Are More Stringent Than Federal Regulations
for Those Foods in the Commercial Marketplace:
For 7 of the approximately 180 commodity foods offered to schools,
USDA's commodity program has established purchasing specifications
with respect to microbial contamination that are more stringent than
the federal regulations for the same foods available in the commercial
marketplace. For example, the commodity program will not purchase raw
ground beef that tests positive for Salmonella. On the other hand,
USDA regulations for commercially available raw ground beef tolerate
the presence of a certain amount of Salmonella. Specifically, a
facility meets regulatory performance standards if, on the basis of
USDA's regulatory inspections, 7.5 percent or less of raw ground beef
samples the agency collects test positive for Salmonella. In addition,
while the commodity program rejects all raw boneless or ground beef
that tests positive for E. coli O157:H7, USDA regulations allow such
beef to enter commerce if it is first cooked. Moreover, the commodity
program, through its purchasing specifications, rejects ground turkey
and diced cooked chicken if microbial testing reveals levels of
certain bacteria, which indicate deficiencies in sanitation during
production of these foods, are above established limits. Federal
regulations, on the other hand, do not require that these same foods
destined for the commercial marketplace be tested for these organisms.
Table 2 lists the seven foods for which the commodity program's
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination are more
stringent than federal regulations.
Table 2: Seven Commodity Program Foods with Purchasing Specifications
Related to Microbial Contamination That Are More Stringent Than
Federal Regulations:
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Boneless
beef (raw);
Product examples: Raw beef trimmings used to make ground beef;
Commodity purchasing specifications: E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella:
raw boneless beef rejected when results are positive. Bacteria that
may indicate unsanitary conditions: raw boneless beef rejected when
results exceed certain limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: E. coli
O157:H7: raw boneless beef intended for grinding that tests positive
must be treated to destroy the pathogen (for example, cooked) before
entering commerce or destroyed.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Ground
beef (raw);
Product examples: Forty-pound cartons of frozen raw ground beef;
Commodity purchasing specifications: E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella:
raw ground beef rejected when results are positive. Staphylococcus
aureus and other bacteria that may indicate unsanitary conditions: raw
ground beef rejected when results exceed certain limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: E. coli
O157:H7: raw ground beef that tests positive must be treated to
destroy the pathogen (for example, cooked) before entering commerce or
destroyed.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Diced
chicken (cooked);
Product examples: Chicken that has been cooked, diced, and frozen in
plastic bags;
Commodity purchasing specifications: Listeria monocytogenes and
Salmonella: cooked diced chicken rejected when results are positive.
Staphylococcus aureus and other bacteria that may indicate unsanitary
conditions: cooked diced chicken rejected when results exceed certain
limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: Listeria
monocytogenes: ready to eat food products, such as cooked diced
chicken, that test positive cannot enter commerce.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Ground
turkey (raw);
Product examples: Raw ground turkey is processed into precooked taco
filling;
Commodity purchasing specifications: Bacteria that may indicate
unsanitary conditions: ground turkey rejected when results exceed
certain limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: No established
regulatory requirements for ground poultry.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Liquid
eggs (pasteurized);
Product examples: Liquid eggs to processors in 48,000-pound tankers
and to schools in 5-pound or 30-pound frozen cartons;
Commodity purchasing specifications: Salmonella: liquid eggs rejected
when results are positive. Bacteria that may indicate unsanitary
conditions: liquid eggs rejected when results exceed certain limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: Salmonella:
liquid egg products must be treated to inactivate this pathogen or
used under strict requirements.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Sliced
apples (raw and sliced);
Product examples: Sliced, raw apples in small bags as individual
servings;
Commodity purchasing specifications: E. coli O157:H7, Listeria
monocytogenes, Salmonella, or Shigella: sliced apples rejected when
results are positive. Bacteria that may indicate unsanitary
conditions: sliced apples rejected when results exceed certain limits;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: No required
testing before product enters commerce.
Commodity program food (form to which specifications apply): Baby
carrots (raw);
Product examples: Raw baby carrots in small bags as individual
servings;
Commodity purchasing specifications: Listeria monocytogenes,
Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, and other bacteria that may
indicate unsanitary conditions: testing required but no limits set;
Regulatory requirements for the commercial marketplace: No required
testing before product enters commerce.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA and FDA information.
[End of table]
Officials of USDA's commodity program told us that more-stringent
standards are needed for certain foods in the commodity program
because commodity foods go to school-age children as well as
populations, such as very young children, who are considered at a
higher risk than the general population for serious complications from
foodborne illnesses. For the remainder of the 180 commodity foods, the
purchasing program requires that suppliers meet existing federal
regulations for food in the commercial marketplace. For example, all
ready-to-eat meat and poultry must adhere to federal regulatory limits
for Listeria monocytogenes.
Commodity program officials told us they selected products for more-
stringent specifications on the basis of their views of the safety
risk associated with different types of food. For example, in their
view, raw meat products that are ground present a higher risk than
other meat products because they include meat from the surface of
carcasses that, if contaminated, could spread contamination throughout
a large volume of finished raw ground product. Similarly, one
contaminated egg could spread contamination through a large batch of
liquid eggs. Also, program officials said that cooked diced chicken
requires additional microbial testing because it is handled after
cooking and before packaging.
While officials of USDA's commodity program told us they consult with
a variety of groups and individuals in developing purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination, they did not
document these informal consultations. For example, commodity program
officials said some purchasing specifications, such as those for raw
ground beef, were based in part on consultations with industry
representatives and other agencies within USDA, while other purchasing
specifications were based on information that has been gathered over
time through informal consultation with internal and external food
safety experts. Commodity program officials also stated that they
consult with USDA's meat and poultry regulatory program and food
safety experts as they change purchasing specifications. In addition,
commodity program officials stated that, each year, USDA's meat and
poultry regulatory program and one of USDA's research agencies review
the purchasing specifications for some of the meat, poultry, and
liquid egg products to ensure that the specifications meet minimum
regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, commodity program officials
told us they did not maintain documentation regarding the process by
which they developed their purchasing specifications for the seven
products that have more-stringent specifications related to microbial
contamination. In addition, we have previously reported that when
agencies relied on informal coordination mechanisms and relationships
with individual officials to ensure effective collaboration, the
efforts may not continue once personnel move to their next
assignments.[Footnote 5]
The Commodity Program's More-Stringent Purchasing Specifications Do
Not Apply to All Foods and Pathogens of Concern:
While USDA's commodity program has more-stringent purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination for seven products,
it has not developed more-stringent specifications for some
commodities it provides to schools that have been associated with
foodborne illness and outbreaks. For example, according to data
collected by CDC, poultry is among the most common foods associated
with foodborne illnesses and outbreaks and has been associated with
bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Clostridium
perfringens. While most of the poultry items the commodity program
provides to schools are precooked, the program does provide raw, whole
chickens cut into eight pieces to schools. Despite food safety
concerns about this product, however, the commodity program does not
have more-stringent purchasing specifications related to testing and
sampling for microbial contamination for it, as it does for other
foods that present food safety risks. Nevertheless, according to
program officials, other specifications for this product--such as
holding it within certain temperatures and processing it within 7
calendar days after slaughter--are designed to control microbial
contamination.
In addition, USDA's commodity program has more-stringent purchasing
specifications for one of the ready-to-eat meat and poultry products
it provides to schools--diced cooked chicken--but not for others. The
commodity program provides schools several ready-to-eat meat and
poultry products, including cubed ham and smoked turkey breasts. These
products, like all ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, must not
test positive for Listeria monocytogenes, in accordance with federal
regulatory requirements. The commodity program, in its purchasing
specifications, does not require testing for any additional pathogens
or other bacteria for these food products, as it does for the cooked
diced chicken it purchases. Program officials explained that they
believe most of the ready-to-eat meat and poultry products they
purchase present less of a contamination risk because they are placed
in sterile sealed packages for cooking and shipping, but others have
raised concerns about these types of products. For example,
representatives of a large food distributor we interviewed stated that
ready-to-eat meat and poultry products are their biggest food safety
concern after raw meat and poultry. One food industry safety expert
told us he thought that all of the commodity program's ready-to-eat
meat products should have more-stringent specifications related to
microbial contamination. One large urban school district we
interviewed required its commercial suppliers to test all ready-to-eat
meat and poultry products for a variety of pathogens and other
bacteria, including Clostridium perfringens, Shigella, and
Staphylococcus aureus, in addition to Salmonella and Listeria
monocytogenes. Finally, according to active surveillance conducted by
CDC, the incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in 2009 was at its
highest rate since 1999.
Similarly, USDA's commodity program has more-stringent purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination for some of the
fresh produce items it provides to schools but not others that have
been associated with foodborne illness and outbreaks. Currently, the
commodity program applies purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination to minimally processed fresh produce items--
sliced apples and baby carrots--but not to other fresh produce items.
[Footnote 6] However, these two commodities are only offered on a
trial basis to a limited number of schools. Most of the fresh produce--
including most of the minimally processed items such as sliced apples
and baby carrots--that schools obtain through the commodity program is
purchased by DOD. The agreement between the commodity program and DOD
does not require DOD to use the same purchasing specifications related
to microbial testing that the commodity program uses for the produce
it purchases. DOD officials told us the agency relies on federal
regulations to ensure food safety but may occasionally test fresh
produce items for microbial contamination. In contrast, the commodity
program requires its suppliers to test for pathogens and other
bacteria on an ongoing basis. Therefore, baby carrots and sliced
apples purchased by the commodity program undergo more-stringent
microbial testing than the baby carrots and sliced apples purchased
for schools by DOD. Because commodity program specifications are more
stringent than DOD specifications for these products, the commodity
program initiated conversations with DOD officials in 2010 to explore
having DOD use the more-stringent standards, according to commodity
program officials.
DOD purchases most of the other fresh produce distributed to schools
in the commodity program and relies on current federal regulations
that do not require microbial testing for produce in the commercial
marketplace. DOD officials told us they do not have any more-stringent
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for any
of these produce items. While the commodity program purchases and
distributes to schools a few fresh produce items--whole apples,
oranges, pears, and potatoes--in addition to baby carrots and sliced
apples, DOD purchases and distributes to schools several times the
amount of fresh and minimally processed produce purchased by the
commodity program and a wider variety of produce items, including
grapes, lettuce, celery, broccoli, and spinach. In recent years, many
foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses have been associated with
fresh produce, including items like those that DOD purchases for
schools. For example, in 2006, bagged spinach contaminated with E.
coli O157:H7 sickened an estimated 238 people, killed 5 people, and
cost the industry an estimated $80 million in lost sales. As a result,
the company most closely linked to this outbreak now routinely tests
its spinach and other leafy greens for E. coli O157:H7. While DOD did
not purchase this contaminated bagged spinach item or distribute it
through the commodity program, according to DOD and USDA officials,
DOD does purchase other bagged spinach products and provides them to
schools. In addition, in the past year, chopped celery contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes was linked to an outbreak in one state
that resulted in 5 deaths, and alfalfa sprouts contaminated with
Salmonella sickened an estimated 140 people in 26 states and the
District of Columbia. Officials we interviewed in a midsize urban
school district said they do not serve what they called "high-risk"
raw produce items, such as spinach and bean sprouts, because children
are at a higher risk of complications from foodborne illness.
Recently recognized pathogens have been associated with a variety of
foods, including meat and fresh produce, that are not addressed either
by the commodity program's purchasing specifications or by federal
regulations. Specifically, public health officials have shown that at
least six strains of E. coli other than E. coli O157:H7 produce the
same potentially deadly toxins and life-threatening illness. CDC has
estimated that these strains cause approximately 113,000 illnesses and
300 hospitalizations annually in the United States. Outbreaks
associated with these six strains of E. coli have involved lettuce,
raw ground beef, and berries, among other foods, according to CDC. For
example, in 2010, two students in New York state developed a disease
with complications, such as kidney failure and anemia, after consuming
romaine lettuce contaminated with one of these strains, which the
school district purchased commercially. Officials in this district
told us that, as a result of the outbreak, the district reduced the
amount of lettuce it served and stopped purchasing the particular
bagged lettuce product associated with the outbreak.
Although USDA's commodity program has not developed any purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination to address the risks
from these non-O157 strains of E. coli, federal regulatory agencies
have considered taking action to address them, and some food companies
have begun to test their products for these strains. In October 2007,
USDA, FDA, and CDC cosponsored a public meeting to consider the public
health significance of non-O157 E. coli in the U.S. food supply. As of
February 2011, USDA's meat and poultry regulatory program is
considering conducting routine testing for the presence of six non-
O157 strains of E. coli in certain raw beef products. In addition,
some companies in the food industry have developed their own tests and
are currently using these methods to determine whether the food they
produce is contaminated with strains of non-O157 E. coli. For example,
we visited one produce company that routinely tests its leafy greens
for these strains. In addition, USDA's meat and poultry regulatory
program has collaborated with industry to develop tests that could
rapidly detect six such strains in raw ground beef. As of February
2011, officials for USDA's meat and poultry regulatory program said
that the department had developed standardized tests to detect all six
strains.
The Commodity Program's Specifications for Raw Ground Beef Are
Generally Similar to Those of Some Other Large Purchasers:
While virtually all food for sale in the commercial marketplace must
meet federal regulatory requirements, federal agencies and others may
apply more-stringent purchasing specifications in the contracts they
use to purchase food. USDA's commodity program has several purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination for raw ground beef
production, process oversight, and testing. Like the commodity
program, some other large purchasers of raw ground beef that we
interviewed have purchasing specifications in similar areas, although
the specifications differ in certain details. In response to a request
from the commodity program, the National Research Council found that
the scientific basis for the program's purchasing specifications for
raw ground beef, which were revised in 2010, is unclear.
The Commodity Program Has Purchasing Specifications Related to
Microbial Contamination for Raw Ground Beef Production, Process
Oversight, and Testing:
The purchasing specifications for raw ground beef set by USDA's
commodity program in 2010, which are more stringent than federal
regulatory requirements for foods in the commercial marketplace, are
designed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate microbial contamination
through (1) steps taken when cattle are slaughtered, (2) oversight of
the suppliers' slaughter and grinding processes, and (3) microbial
testing of the raw ground beef at different points in the production
process from slaughter through grinding. The commodity program's
purchasing specifications include the following:
* Steps when cattle are slaughtered: The slaughter processes used by
beef suppliers must include at least two actions--known as
antimicrobial interventions--designed to reduce the level of pathogens
on the beef carcasses. One of these interventions must occur at a
critical point in the production process where such interventions are
likely to effectively reduce pathogen levels. For example, beef
suppliers may use interventions to control contamination of the
carcass from the hide during skinning or from the gastrointestinal
tract during evisceration, or to control the growth of pathogens when
the carcass is chilled or when the finished product is stored.
Suppliers may use such interventions as organic acids, hot water, or
steam applied to the carcass; physical actions; or a combination of
interventions in sequence. For example, a slaughter facility might
combine a physical intervention, such as trimming away visible
contamination on the carcass with a knife, with other antimicrobial
interventions, such as spraying the carcass with very hot water, to
improve the microbial safety of the beef carcass after slaughter,
skinning, and evisceration. In addition, beef suppliers must validate--
either through existing agency guidance or studies they conduct--that
the interventions they use reduce the level of harmful pathogens on
carcasses by at least 99.9 percent.
* Oversight of suppliers' slaughter and grinding processes: Before
purchasing raw ground beef from a supplier, commodity program
officials visit the supplier's facilities to evaluate, among other
things, its quality control programs, equipment, and documentation
that the supplier's product complies with the program's
specifications. After purchases have begun, commodity program
officials periodically inspect the supplier's facilities, processes,
and documentation at a frequency dictated by the size of the
purchases. For example, these inspections occur monthly for suppliers
with multiple, ongoing contracts, and they occur at least once during
each contract period for suppliers with intermittent contracts. If
deficiencies are discovered, these inspections may occur more often.
Finally, when raw ground beef is being produced, commodity program
officials must be present to monitor the supplier's performance,
verify compliance with the program's specifications, and obtain
samples of raw ground beef for microbial testing, among other things.
* Microbial testing of raw ground beef at different points during
production: Beef suppliers must send samples of raw boneless beef
before and after it is ground to a laboratory, accredited by the
commodity program, where the samples are tested for the full range of
microbes detailed in the commodity program's purchasing
specifications. Under the current specifications, samples must be
taken from each 2,000-pound lot of raw boneless beef to be ground and
each 10,000-pound lot of finished raw ground beef. Samples of finished
raw ground beef are selected at 15-minute intervals during grinding.
Suppliers may not distribute the raw ground beef to schools until the
test results are known. In the event that test results reveal the
presence of Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7, the supplier must notify
both the commodity program and USDA's meat and poultry regulatory
program. The commodity program rejects raw ground beef contaminated
with these two pathogens. The commodity program uses test results of
other bacteria to help ensure that the raw ground beef it distributes
to schools is produced under sanitary conditions. If the levels of
these bacteria exceed certain thresholds, the commodity program
rejects the affected lot of raw boneless beef or ground beef.
Suppliers that fail to maintain sanitary conditions are barred from
producing raw boneless beef or ground beef for the commodity program
until they take corrective action to restore sanitary conditions.
Some Other Large Purchasers of Raw Ground Beef Have Similar, More-
Stringent, Purchasing Specifications, Although Certain Details Differ:
The seven large purchasers of raw ground beef we interviewed (six
large private-sector purchasers--including grocery store chains and
quick-service restaurants--and one large federal purchaser) relied on
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for raw
ground beef production, process oversight, and testing that were the
same or substantially similar to those used by USDA's commodity
program, with variation in such things as the number or placement of
required antimicrobial interventions designed to reduce microbial
contamination. The specifications used by these purchasers, like those
used by the commodity program, call for more-stringent testing for
microbial contamination than do federal regulations for the same foods
in the commercial marketplace. Officials at a meatpacking plant we
visited said that both the commodity program's specifications and
those of its large, private-sector customers include high standards
with only slight differences. In addition, two large purchasers
pointed out that specifications may vary depending on the intended use
of the raw ground beef. For example, a quick-service restaurant chain
that maintains strict control over its cooking processes may have
specifications that differ from those of the commodity program and
grocery store chains, which have no control over how the raw ground
beef they purchase is cooked. The purchasing specifications shared by
the seven purchasers we interviewed are generally as follows:
* Steps when cattle are slaughtered: All but two of the large
purchasers told us they require suppliers to apply interventions on
beef carcasses to reduce the level of pathogens and other bacteria, as
the commodity program does. These purchasing specifications are more
stringent than federal regulatory requirements. The specifications
used by these purchasers differ in terms of the number of
interventions to apply, where in the production process to apply the
interventions, and the target level for the reduction of pathogens.
- Number of interventions: Although three of these purchasers, like
the commodity program, require two interventions, one required three,
one required seven, and another purchaser did not dictate the number
of interventions, as long as its suppliers achieved a given reduction
in the levels of pathogens.
- Where to apply interventions: Some of these purchasers specify where
interventions should be applied. For example, like the commodity
program, one purchaser requires that at least one intervention be
applied at a critical point in the production process where such
interventions are likely to effectively reduce pathogen levels.
Another purchaser stipulates that both interventions it requires be
applied at such critical points.
- Target levels for pathogen reduction: Specifications for the level
of pathogen reduction ranged from removing 99 percent of pathogens to
removing 99.9 percent. One purchaser did not specify a target for
reduction of pathogens but requires its boneless beef suppliers to
demonstrate that their processes will reduce E. coli O157:H7 to
nondetectable levels.
The purchaser that did not include additional measures to reduce the
level of pathogens and other bacteria on beef carcasses in its
purchasing specifications told us it relied on federal regulatory
requirements that were designed to ensure the safety of raw ground
beef. This purchaser also said, however, that some of its suppliers
may apply interventions or other measures that are more stringent than
federal regulations as part of their routine business practices.
* Oversight of suppliers' slaughter and grinding processes: All the
purchasers we interviewed use one or more of the following measures to
oversee the performance of their raw boneless beef and ground beef
suppliers: initial approval of suppliers, periodic inspections, and on-
site presence during grinding. But they differ in their specifications
for who must conduct the inspections and how frequently the
inspections must occur as follows:
- Like the commodity program, most of the purchasers require initial
approval of potential suppliers and purchase raw boneless and ground
beef only from approved suppliers. For example, one purchaser said it
requires that both its suppliers and grinders certify that they can
meet its quality specifications before contracting with them.
- All of the purchasers told us they require periodic inspections of
their beef suppliers or grinders; most use both their own employees
and third parties to conduct these inspections. For example, one
purchaser uses its own employees and those of its grinders to inspect
its suppliers of boneless beef at least once annually. This purchaser
also requires both its raw boneless beef and its raw ground beef
suppliers to undergo at least one annual audit by a third party.
One purchaser had its own employees on site when its beef was being
ground--as the commodity program does--because all its raw ground beef
is produced either at a large company-owned facility or in its own
stores.
* Microbial testing of raw ground beef at different points during
production: Most of the purchasers we interviewed told us they require
their suppliers to sample beef before and after it is ground, to test
these samples for pathogens, and to meet specified thresholds related
to those pathogens. Their specifications differed, however, in terms
of how they sampled raw boneless beef and ground beef and the
microbial testing they require as follows:
- One purchaser said it requires that samples be gathered twice from
each 2,000-pound lot of boneless beef, once before it leaves the
meatpacking plant, and once when the lots arrive at the grinder.
Another purchaser, like the commodity program, required samples of
finished raw ground beef to be taken every 15 minutes during grinding,
and one required samples to be taken about every 9 minutes.
- Like the commodity program, most of these purchasers require that
their suppliers retain control of the raw ground beef until the test
results are known. These purchasers reject raw boneless or ground beef
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. One purchaser also requires
suppliers to test boneless beef for pathogens that indicate whether it
was produced under sanitary conditions. This purchaser said it used
the results of such tests, along with other information, to evaluate
the performance of its suppliers, as the commodity program does.
The one purchaser that had not developed specifications for the
sampling and testing of raw boneless or ground beef relied on federal
regulatory requirements, which include limits for E. coli O157:H7 and
Salmonella. While it lacked such specifications for its suppliers,
this purchaser may occasionally test its raw ground beef for microbial
contamination.
The Scientific Basis for the Commodity Program's Revised Purchasing
Specifications for Raw Ground Beef Is Unclear:
In 2010, an expert committee convened by the National Research Council
at the request of USDA's commodity program found that the scientific
basis of the program's 2010 revisions to its purchasing specifications
for raw ground beef is unclear.[Footnote 7] In its report, the
committee noted that some specifications were based on industry
practices, but it could not determine the scientific basis of the
industry practices. Further, it noted that other specifications
appeared to have been based on information gathered through informal,
ad hoc expert consultation, a method the committee deemed to be the
least preferred form of evidence for developing specifications.
Nevertheless, the committee found that a lack of reported outbreaks in
recent years caused by either Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 associated
with raw ground beef purchased by the commodity program strongly
suggested that the program's purchasing specifications have been
protective of public health. The committee did, however, recommend
that the commodity program develop a systematic, transparent, and
auditable system for modifying, reviewing, updating, and justifying
science-based purchasing specifications for raw ground beef.
The committee was also asked by USDA to compare the commodity
program's purchasing specifications to those used by other large
purchasers of raw ground beef. Accordingly, the committee reviewed the
purchasing specifications for raw ground beef used by 24 large
corporate purchasers and found considerable variation with regard to
acceptable levels of microbes. Specifically, the committee found
substantial differences among the 24 purchasers in their criteria for
bacteria that indicate the extent to which production conditions are
sanitary, such as generic E. coli, as well as for Salmonella, Listeria
monocytogenes, and E. coli O157:H7. The committee attributed the
variations, in part, to the intended use of the raw ground beef. For
example, specifications for raw ground beef distributed in frozen form
may need to differ from purchasing specifications designed to improve
the shelf life of fresh ground beef. According to its report, because
the committee lacked information on the scientific basis for the
corporate purchasing specifications, it could not directly compare the
commodity program's specifications with those of the corporate
purchasers. The commodity program revised its purchasing
specifications for raw ground beef in 2010 in response to concerns
expressed in the media that the program's existing specifications were
not as stringent as those of large-scale purchasers of raw ground beef
in the corporate sector, such as quick-service restaurants.
School Districts Have Adopted a Variety of Food Safety Practices to
Help Ensure That Food Served in Schools Is Safe:
While all school districts must follow certain food safety practices
to participate in federally funded school meal programs, school
districts we interviewed have also implemented a number of additional
food safety practices. For example, some of these school districts
have established purchasing specifications related to microbial
contamination and have limited the kinds of foods purchased because of
food safety concerns related to staff training and the adequacy of
their facilities.
School Districts Must Follow Certain Food Safety Practices to
Participate in Federally Funded School Meal Programs:
To participate in federally funded school meal programs, federal
regulations require all school districts to, among other things,
develop written food safety plans and obtain food safety inspections
of their schools. Specifically, each school district must implement a
food safety plan that complies with USDA regulations. USDA publishes
guidance to help schools develop plans that identify and mitigate food
safety hazards related to preparing, storing, and serving school
meals. These plans address such things as employee hand washing,
proper heating and cooling methods, documentation of food
temperatures, quality assurance steps, corrective actions, and record
keeping. During reviews occurring every 5 years, state officials, in
collaboration with USDA regional officials, are responsible for
verifying school districts' compliance with this requirement.
Nevertheless, although they believe compliance is high, USDA officials
said that information on compliance with this requirement is not
collected at the national level, although it is collected at the state
level. These officials added that USDA and state officials work with
school districts not in compliance to correct any deficiencies. All 18
school districts we interviewed provided us documentation of their
food safety plans. (For a list of the school districts in our sample,
see appendix I.)
In addition, to help schools identify and correct immediate or
persistent food safety problems, schools in each district must be
inspected by relevant state or local health officials at least twice
during each school year. According to the most recent data available
from USDA, about 77 percent of schools in the United States met or
exceeded this requirement during the 2009-2010 school year. The
percentage of schools that meet the requirement for two inspections
annually has increased from about 58 percent since the 2005-2006
school year, when two inspections were first required. Nevertheless,
according to USDA data, about one in five schools still do not meet
the requirement. Although USDA officials reported that they stress the
importance of the inspections and encourage states to provide them,
schools that do not meet the requirement are not penalized. In three
of the school districts in our sample, all schools had received the
required two inspections during the 2009-2010 school year; the level
of compliance with the requirement varied among the other school
districts. Overall, 60 percent of the schools in the 18 school
districts in our sample received two or more inspections during the
2009-2010 school year. However, in one large urban school district,
fewer than 1 percent of the schools received two inspections. When
that district is excluded from the calculation, 77 percent of schools
in the remaining 17 districts met or exceeded the requirement for two
annual inspections.
According to USDA data, reasons cited by schools for not meeting the
requirement include insufficient staff or funding resources at state
and local health departments to conduct the inspections, the need for
these departments to conduct higher priority work, and the lack of
inspectors in small towns and rural areas. Although a few of the
school districts we interviewed mentioned reasons similar to these,
officials in nine districts we interviewed pointed to two additional
issues. First, in five of the districts, at least some of the schools
that did not receive two inspections were sites without kitchens,
where food is delivered from kitchens at other schools. Such sites had
no kitchen facilities for the local health department to inspect.
According to USDA officials, the agency reminds states each year that
inspections are required for food preparation and service areas in
schools. Despite these reminders, we found that state officials take
different approaches to these sites in their annual reporting of
school inspections to USDA. For example, officials for one state
include such sites as not receiving required inspections, while
another state exempts these schools from inspections and does not
include them in its annual report to USDA. While federal regulations
state that schools must obtain a minimum of two food safety
inspections during each school year, they do not make a distinction
between schools with or without kitchen facilities. Furthermore, USDA
has not issued guidance to states and school districts that
specifically addresses whether sites that do not prepare food are
subject to the inspection requirement and whether states may exempt
from inspections schools that do not prepare food. Second, seven
school districts we interviewed, including three of the ones that did
not receive inspections at some sites that lacked kitchens, said that
they had to pay local health departments for inspections, which takes
funds away from other parts of districts' food service budgets.
Officials in one of these districts said that, although their schools
are entitled to receive one inspection per year free of charge, the
district would have to pay the county for a second inspection; as a
result, most of the schools in this district had received only one
inspection. Fees paid by school districts for the two annual
inspections ranged from $75 to $618 per school site. Officials in one
large urban district estimated they spent approximately $65,000 on
inspection fees in the 2009-2010 school year.
School Districts Have Also Implemented a Number of Additional
Practices Related to Food Safety:
In addition to the steps school districts take to meet federal
requirements, all of the school districts we contacted had implemented
other steps to help ensure the safety of the meals they served. These
steps include establishing purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination and food safety, considering food safety in
deciding which foods to order, and other practices related to
inspections and use of technology. We selected our nonprobability
sample of 18 school districts to include districts more likely to have
developed purchasing specifications and other food safety practices
because of their size, prior experience with foodborne illnesses, and
other factors.
While Several School Districts Have Established Purchasing
Specifications Related to Microbial Contamination, Some Are Not Aware
of More-Stringent Commodity Program Specifications for Some Foods:
Several of the school districts in our sample have established their
own microbial purchasing specifications for the food items they
purchase in the commercial marketplace that are more stringent than
current federal regulatory requirements. Overall, 10 of the 18 school
districts we interviewed had developed purchasing specifications
related to microbial contamination or, more generally, food safety.
These districts included 6 large urban school districts and 4 smaller
urban and suburban districts; 2 of these districts participate in food-
buying cooperatives with other districts. Five districts' purchasing
specifications identified specific pathogens that the districts ask
their suppliers to test their food for, along with acceptable limits
of each. For example, 1 large urban school district requires that all
frozen fully cooked meat and poultry and all ready-to-eat meat and
poultry products it buys commercially be tested for certain pathogens,
including Clostridium perfringens, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, and
Staphylococcus aureus. The district rejects any products that exceed
its thresholds for the presence of these and other microbes. The other
5 school districts have implemented purchasing specifications related
more broadly to food safety. For example, 4 of these districts'
specifications require their suppliers to have in place plans designed
to reduce or eliminate microbial contamination. In addition, 5 of
these 10 districts' purchasing specifications described the districts'
right to send suppliers' products for additional microbial testing,
although these clauses often listed neither specific pathogens to be
tested for nor thresholds.
Despite some districts having taken such additional steps, none of the
state officials and few of the district officials we interviewed were
aware that, for seven products, the commodity program's purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination are more stringent
than federal regulatory requirements for the same foods in the
commercial marketplace. Among the officials in the four school
districts that had some awareness of these differences, officials in
two districts said they learned of the differences through media
stories about the commodity program's specifications for raw ground
beef. Officials in nine of the school districts we interviewed said
that greater knowledge of these differences might affect their future
purchasing decisions. More specifically, they said that they could use
this knowledge to make more informed choices about which foods to
purchase from the commodity program and which to purchase from the
commercial marketplace. For example, one district official said the
information would have an impact, although it would have to be
presented in context and in a way that district officials could easily
understand it. In 2003, we recommended that USDA's commodity program
highlight on its Web page the more-stringent product safety
specifications it uses when purchasing foods it provides to schools,
since this would help schools ensure that the food they purchase is
safe.[Footnote 8] USDA has not implemented this recommendation. While
USDA has set up a Web site that includes links to online copies of the
commodity program's purchasing specifications and related documents,
USDA has not made clear that its purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination for seven commodity foods are more stringent
than federal regulatory requirements for the same foods in the
commercial marketplace.
Food Safety Concerns Related to Staff and Facilities Limit the Kinds
of Foods Some Districts Purchase:
Although factors such as cost, nutrition, and quality also influence
their purchasing decisions, officials for several school districts we
interviewed limit the kinds of meat and produce they buy because of
concerns about microbial contamination and food safety, including
concerns about their own staff's training and the adequacy of their
facilities. Specifically, 9 of the 18 school districts in our sample
have discontinued buying raw meat--such as ground beef, chicken, or
turkey--for their school meals. Each of these districts said they
purchase only precooked or processed meat products, whether through
the commodity program or in the commercial marketplace. For example, 3
large urban school districts do not purchase raw meat because they
cannot ensure that the kitchen staff at the many sites in their
districts can handle raw meat safely and cook it to an internal
temperature that would kill pathogens. All of the school districts we
interviewed reported that they trained food service staff on food
safety. Nevertheless, officials in 8 of the 9 districts that no longer
purchase raw meat attributed that decision, at least in part, to
concerns about their staff, including staff turnover and
qualifications. In addition to factors related to staff, officials in
5 districts cited concerns about the adequacy of kitchen facilities as
a reason to eliminate the purchase of raw meat. For example, officials
in a large urban district said that some of its schools were over 100
years old and therefore lacked modern cooking facilities; in some of
its schools, the "kitchen" may be an old ball closet with ovens in it.
Without adequate staff and facilities, officials in these districts
said it was safer to purchase cooked or processed meat.
Although half the districts we interviewed do not buy raw meat, the
other half do. Officials in many of these nine school districts told
us they buy raw meat because it costs less than precooked products,
and their staff and facilities are adequate and able to handle it. For
example, the director of one midsize urban school district's food
service department indicated that the district has tended to buy more
raw meat in recent years, because it is less expensive than precooked
products, and the district has the facilities to cook and cool these
products safely. While these nine districts buy raw meat, four of them
limit its handling in some way, such as handling it only in a small
number of appropriately equipped facilities. For example, one small
urban school district receives raw ground beef at only one of its
kitchen facilities, where it is cooked in one location in that kitchen
by two staff members who have been specifically trained to handle and
prepare it safely.
Moreover, we found that about 30 percent (39 million pounds) of all
ground beef sent to schools by USDA's commodity program in the 2009-
2010 school year was uncooked. Schools in every state that receives
food from the commodity program received this raw ground beef. The
remainder of the ground beef from the commodity program was cooked
before being sent to schools. In addition, none of the school
districts we contacted reported purchasing irradiated food, such as
ground beef. Largely, school officials said they did not buy
irradiated food because parents did not want it served to their
children. Officials of USDA's commodity program said that, while the
program continues to offer irradiated beef products, school districts
have not ordered any such products in several years. We have reported
that irradiation kills 99.9 percent of the pathogens on food.[Footnote
9]
Many of the officials in the school districts we interviewed raised
concerns about the safety of fresh produce that, in some cases, were
similar to those raised about raw meat. While all 18 of the districts
in our sample reported buying fresh produce, officials in 12 districts
raised concerns about its safety. For example, 1 suburban school
district stopped purchasing bagged lettuce after some of its students
were sickened by it in 2010 during a multistate outbreak of foodborne
illness. While the district now purchases heads of lettuce and has its
own staff wash and chop it, its food service director acknowledged
that the lettuce is now vulnerable to mishandling by the district's
own staff. Officials in another school district said that handling
fresh produce safely is a concern because of difficulty maintaining it
at or below 41 degrees in its facilities. These officials said that if
the district cannot maintain produce at a safe temperature, it might
have to throw away any leftover salad, which could make fresh salads
too expensive to serve. Nevertheless, 8 of the school districts in our
sample indicated that the recent trend in their district has been
toward buying more fresh produce. For example, 1 large urban school
district indicated that it was expanding its purchases of fresh
produce and the number of salad bars in its schools. In addition, 10
of the school districts we interviewed said they obtained at least
some produce through the commodity program from DOD. While the
remaining 8 school districts said they purchase all of their fresh
produce in the commercial marketplace, none attributed this practice
to concerns about the safety of produce from DOD.
School Districts Also Employ a Number of Other Practices to Help
Ensure Food Safety:
In addition to establishing purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination and limiting the kinds of foods they purchase,
school districts employ a variety of other practices to help ensure
the safety of the food they purchase, including:
* Internal inspections: Ten school districts reported that the
district's own officials, usually managers, inspect individual
schools' kitchen facilities on a periodic basis. For example, one
large urban district reported that its officials had been trained by
county health inspectors to conduct kitchen inspections, and these
officials did so throughout the district.
* Visiting vendors' facilities: Ten school districts reported that the
districts' own officials visited food vendors' facilities before or
during contract periods to learn more about the vendors' food safety
procedures, among other things. For example, one district's food
service director reported visiting the facilities of two of its
suppliers, which helped the director understand the vendors' food
production processes and their standards.
* Technological procedures: Two school districts reported using
technology to help monitor or improve food safety in school kitchens.
For example, officials in one district centrally monitored the
temperatures in all of the district's walk-in freezers and coolers, as
well as the temperature of food as it was being prepared in the
district's kitchens.
Conclusions:
For seven of the commodity foods it provides to schools, USDA's
commodity program has developed purchasing specifications related to
microbial contamination that are more stringent than USDA's and FDA's
regulatory requirements for these same foods in the commercial
marketplace. The commodity program has developed such specifications
because it serves populations at increased risk of foodborne illnesses
and their more serious complications. Nevertheless, questions remain
regarding whether the program has identified the foods and pathogens
that present the highest risks to the populations the program serves.
Recent outbreaks involving, among other things, various fresh produce
items and non-O157 strains of toxin-producing E. coli, have revealed
risks not addressed by the commodity program's specifications. More
broadly, questions remain regarding whether the process by which the
commodity program develops these specifications is sufficiently
systematic and transparent. Program officials told us they selected
products for more-stringent specifications for the seven commodity
foods based on their views of the safety risk associated with
different types of food; that they developed these specifications
through informal consultation with a variety of groups and
individuals; and that they did not document this process. Moreover,
although the commodity program undertook a very public revision of its
purchasing specifications for ground beef in 2010, a committee of the
National Research Council found that the new specifications were
developed through informal, ad hoc consultations and that their
scientific basis was unclear. Development of specifications for foods
offered by the program other than ground beef have not undergone a
similar level of review. In addition, although all 18 of the school
districts we interviewed considered food safety as part of their
purchasing decisions, few were aware of the commodity program's more-
stringent specifications related to microbial contamination for the
seven foods. As a result, district officials lack information that
could help them make more informed decisions about whether to purchase
food from the commodity program or the commercial marketplace.
Furthermore, without more specific guidance from the commodity program
as to how states and school districts should count schools that do not
obtain required health inspections because they do not prepare food on
site, the program may not have accurate information on the extent to
which kitchens that prepare school meals meet state and local food
safety requirements.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To strengthen USDA's oversight of the safety of food purchased by its
commodity program and served in federal school meal programs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture instruct the commodity
program to take the following three actions:
* develop a systematic and transparent process to determine whether
foods offered by the program require more-stringent specifications
related to microbial contamination, including steps to: identify
pathogens, strains of pathogens, or other foods that merit more-
stringent specifications; document the scientific basis used to
develop the specifications; and review the specifications on a
periodic basis;
* share information with school districts in a more explicit form
regarding the foods covered by more-stringent purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination to enable districts
to make more informed choices; and:
* issue more specific guidance to states and school districts
regarding the applicability of the regulatory requirement for food
safety inspections to schools that do not prepare food.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA, the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), and DOD for review and comment. The
departments did not provide official written comments to include in
our report. However, in an e-mail received April 7, 2011, the USDA
liaison stated that USDA generally agreed with all of our
recommendations. USDA and HHS also provided technical comments. We
incorporated these technical comments into the report, as appropriate.
DOD did not have any comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, and Health and
Human Services; and other interested parties. In addition, this report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Lisa Shames:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The overall objective of this review was to assess the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) standards and procedures to ensure the safety
of food in school meal programs. Specifically, we assessed (1) the
extent to which federal purchasing specifications related to microbial
contamination for food in the commodity program differ from federal
regulations for the same foods available in the commercial
marketplace; (2) the extent to which the commodity program's
purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination for raw
ground beef differ from those imposed by large federal and private-
sector purchasers; and (3) examples of standards and practices that
exist at the state and school district level to help ensure that food
procured by schools is not contaminated by pathogens.
To address the extent to which federal purchasing specifications
related to microbial contamination for food in the commodity program
differ from federal regulations for the same foods available in the
commercial marketplace, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations.
We also interviewed officials in both USDA's commodity program and its
meat and poultry regulatory program, and gathered documentation
related to purchasing specifications and regulatory requirements. To
determine the purchasing specifications applied by the Department of
Defense (DOD) to the fresh produce it purchases for distribution to
school districts through the commodity program, we interviewed DOD
officials and gathered related documentation. We also gathered
information on regulatory requirements for fresh produce and other
foods not regulated by USDA through discussions with officials from
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA officials also provided us
related documentation, including agency guidance for good
agricultural, manufacturing, and handling practices. We then compared
the purchasing specifications used by the commodity program and by DOD
with federal regulatory requirements for food sold in the commercial
marketplace. In addition, we discussed these specifications and
regulatory requirements with knowledgeable groups and individuals--
including representatives of industry associations and consumer
groups. To learn more about the extent to which outbreaks of foodborne
illness are associated with schools, we analyzed information from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Foodborne Disease
Outbreak Surveillance System, which collects information reported to
CDC by state and local health departments on outbreaks of foodborne
illness. Because this information system relies on voluntarily
reported outbreaks, and reporting varies greatly across states, it is
not an adequate way to determine the total number of foodborne
illnesses or the actual extent of outbreaks associated with schools.
CDC defines such an outbreak as two or more similar illnesses that
result from the consumption of a common food. We took a number of
steps to assess the reliability of this data, including interviewing
CDC officials regarding how the data are collected and entered, as
well as electronic testing of the data. As a result of these steps, we
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of our review.
To assess the extent to which the commodity program's purchasing
specifications related to microbial contamination for raw ground beef
differ from those imposed by other large federal and private-sector
purchasers, we analyzed the commodity program's purchasing
specifications for raw boneless beef and ground beef. We also
conducted site visits to three beef slaughter and processing
facilities to gather information on the slaughter and grinding process
for ground beef, as well as on these suppliers' perspectives on the
differences in the specifications used by the commodity program and
private-sector purchasers. To gather information on the specifications
used by other large purchasers of raw ground beef, we selected a
nonprobability sample of private-sector companies based on input from
interviews with federal officials, industry representatives, and
consumer advocates. Our sample included two quick-service restaurant
chains, two chains of food retailers, one food distributor, and one
food service management company. We also selected DOD as a large
federal purchaser of ground beef. We interviewed officials from each
of these purchasers and gathered documentation regarding their
purchasing specifications for boneless beef and ground beef. In some
cases, officials for private-sector companies declined to provide
detailed information on one or more aspects of their specifications.
We then compared the specifications related to microbial contamination
of these seven large purchasers with those of the commodity program.
Specifically, we compared purchasers' specifications related to the
slaughter process, their oversight of beef suppliers and grinders, and
their microbial testing practices. Additionally, to gather information
on the scientific basis of the commodity program's purchasing
specifications for ground beef, we reviewed the findings of a National
Research Council report issued in November 2010.[Footnote 10]
To identify examples of standards and practices used at the state and
school district level to help ensure that food procured by schools is
not contaminated by pathogens, we selected a nonprobability sample of
five states and 18 school districts to review. We selected this
nonprobability sample of school districts to include districts more
likely to have developed purchasing specifications and other food
safety practices, based on input from state and school district
officials. To select this sample, we searched media reports of
foodborne outbreaks involving schools in selected states over the past
10 years. We also considered factors such as geographic dispersion and
differences in the state agency responsible for the commodity program.
Based on these and other factors, we selected five states: California,
Nebraska, New York, Texas, and Virginia. We then selected a
nonprobability sample of school districts in each state. In addition
to input from state officials, we considered each district's size,
indications of a prior experience with foodborne illnesses, and other
factors, including whether a district used a food service management
company or participated in a food-buying cooperative. We either
visited or interviewed by phone officials in 18 school districts
across the five states, including three that had been tied to
foodborne outbreaks by media reports, four that were operated by or
consulted with food service management companies, and six that
participated in food-buying cooperatives. We selected school districts
for the following localities: in California, Berkeley, Burbank, Los
Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vallejo;
in Nebraska, Elkhorn, Lincoln, and Omaha; in New York, Dix Hills, New
York, and Wappingers Falls; in Texas, Dallas and Houston; and in
Virginia, Alexandria and Arlington. We also gathered documentation
from these states and school districts, including copies of food
safety plans and purchasing specifications, among other things. We
used the interviews and documentation to identify food safety
practices used by school districts, including the extent to which
their activities were consistent with federal regulatory requirements
and practices the districts themselves had developed. The results from
these states and districts cannot be generalized to other states and
districts.
We conducted this performance audit between February 2010 and May
2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Lisa Shames (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Cheryl A. Williams,
Assistant Director; Kevin Bray; Ellen Chu; G. Michael Mikota; Justin
L. Monroe; Nico Sloss; and Amy Ward-Meier made key contributions to
this report. Also contributing to this report were Mitchell Karpman
and Anne Rhodes-Kline.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February
2011).
[2] GAO, Food Irradiation: Available Research Indicates That Benefits
Outweigh Risks, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-217] (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
24, 2000). For more information, see GAO, Food Irradiation: FDA Could
Improve Its Documentation and Communication of Key Decisions on Food
Irradiation Petitions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-
309R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2010).
[3] CDC's 2011 estimates of foodborne illnesses are lower than the
estimates it published in 1999 because of differences in data sources
and methods, not a real decline in the rate of illness, according to
its January 2011 reports. CDC based its most recent estimates on a
number of sources--including its Foodborne Disease Outbreak
Surveillance System, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System,
and Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network--and adjusted the
data for, among other things, underreporting, under-diagnosis, and
geographical coverage.
[4] For more information on the risks to school children posed by
recalled foods, see GAO, School Meal Programs: Changes to Federal
Agencies' Procedures Could Reduce the Risk of School Children
Consuming Recalled Foods, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-649] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20,
2009).
[5] GAO, National Security: Key Challenges and Solutions to Strengthen
Interagency Collaboration, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-822T] (Washington, D.C.: June 9,
2010).
[6] For more information on the need for enhanced oversight of high-
risk fresh produce, see GAO, Food Safety: Improvements Needed in FDA
Oversight of Fresh Produce, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1047] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26,
2008).
[7] National Research Council, An Evaluation of the Food Safety
Requirements of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program (Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010).
[8] GAO, School Meal Programs: Few Instances of Foodborne Outbreaks
Reported, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Outbreak Data and Food
Safety Practices, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-530]
(Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003).
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-217]. For more
information, see GAO-10-309R.
[10] National Research Council, An Evaluation of the Food Safety
Requirements of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program (Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
