WASHINGTON -- Retailers have received a valuable reminder that they shouldn't rely on government regulations to protect the quality of the seafood that they're buying, and selling to consumers.
A scathing, just-released criticism of the Food & Drug Administration's enforcement of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point rules found that less than half of seafood processors and importers are following federal safety standards, enacted in 1997. "The potential health risks associated with these violations are significant," stated the General Accounting Office in its report, compiled for Congress.
Citing FDA's own report on its seafood safety program, GAO noted that only 44% of firms had an active plan, including all HACCP components, in 1999 -- up from 31% the year before.
Retailers interviewed by SN said the report shows the importance of developing a strong supplier relationship.
"I'm completely confident of the product we get from [our suppliers]," said Glenn Hedlund, director of perishables for Tidyman's Inc., Greenacres, Wash. "They have very good standards. And, naturally we check the product ourselves when we receive it."
"The people I use, I'd say 75% of them are HACCP certified," added David Bracher, seafood director of New York's Fairway Markets. "I have documents from them, and I can see their quality is stepped up. I think that's partly due to the HACCP certification."
In regards to the domestic seafood industry, GAO described four weaknesses that "limit FDA's ability to prevent unsafe seafood from reaching consumers."
It noted that though the regulations apply to all seafood firms, a number of reasons are keeping the majority of products from being manufactured under HACCP, particularly those items handled on board ship. Only 250 vessels are listed on FDA's inventory of seafood-processing companies, though one FDA inspector is quoted as saying there could be upward of 800 vessels in his district alone that perform some level of processing at sea.
Even products handled under HACCP plans were liable to slip under FDA's radar, due to the nature of inspections. GAO investigators found, in three districts, that 48% of the items subject to the regulations were not being processed at the time of the inspector's visit; therefore, compliance checks were limited to a review of paperwork, rather than product.
GAO also stated that warning letters sent to firms for serious violations were often mailed too late to be effective, with 94% of the notices sent during 2000 exceeding FDA's own 15-day review and approval time frame.
Lastly, it was pointed out that the agency does not yet have "objective, quantifiable data" to assess the effectiveness of its seafood HACCP program, unlike the meat and poultry industries, which operate under identical protocols monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
For imported seafood, GAO found loopholes and shortcomings in each of FDA's four safety strategies: compliance agreements, record reviews, selected inspections and port-of-entry product exams.
Addressing each in turn, congressional investigators found: FDA has yet to sign full compliance agreements with any country; one-third of importers still lack required documentation; a lack of follow-up with foreign firms determined to have serious problems; and a lack of manpower to adequately inspect the incoming product as it arrives.
In responding to the harsh criticism, the principal organization representing processors cited statistics showing that seafood is safer today than in the past.
The National Fisheries Institute, Arlington, Va., said preliminary figures from another report show that outbreaks of disease attributed to seafood have dropped by nearly half since FDA mandated the HACCP program four years ago.
