It's a tough time to be an FDA inspector. Stung by contamination scandals that have gotten progressively worse as the year has worn on, Chinese exporters have almost single-handedly exposed the cracks in our nation's import inspection processes, which the notoriously underfunded organization has had few means to repair.

One of the most recent developments was an investigative report last week by the Associated Press that indicated at least 1 million pounds of seafood from China had been served in U.S. restaurants and supermarkets during the past year without being inspected, despite an active Food and Drug Administration “import alert” that was in place before the June quarantine order. FDA employees recently told Congress that with only 450 staff members charged with screening more than 20 million shipments of imported food and medical devices annually, some container trucks were bound to slip through the cracks.

The Bush administration has responded by creating a cabinet-level post headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to oversee the safety of all U.S. imports. Ongoing talks began with Chinese officials in late July, and Leavitt has said he expects the two countries to agree on safety pacts for food, animal feed, drugs and medical devices by December. Meanwhile, the FDA two weeks ago announced new voluntary standards for state-level food safety programs that it hopes will ultimately integrate inspections at the federal and state level, fixing some of the problems in the system.

“It's a favorable response by the administration,” said Craig Henry, chief operating officer for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, noting that when one considers the volume of food imports that have been coming into the United States for years, the country still has an exceptional food safety record.

When asked whether consumers should be troubled that only about 1% of food imports are inspected, Henry stated the obvious: Even with a massive new influx of funding, the agency still wouldn't be able to check everything.

“Looking at percentages is important, but we also have to balance the obvious limitations that inspection services have, whether it's the FDA or the [U.S. Department of Agriculture], in terms of manpower and financial resources. Even if you took our current funding and doubled it, you'd still only be able to check 2% to 3% of imports.”

The immediate concern for retailers and suppliers, though, is the way that these failures have given rise to massive consumer sentiment in favor of USDA country-of-origin labeling. Industry groups have managed to stave off implementation of COOL for produce and meats for five years now, arguing that any food sold in a U.S. supermarket should be equally safe and federally approved for sale. As such, they say the labels are essentially a marketing claim, which if enforced by threats of government audits, inspections and unnecessary product seizures, will place an unfair financial burden on retailers and suppliers.

It's an entirely reasonable argument, industry sources say, adding that if the FDA was better funded and had more than 450 inspectors monitoring everything edible or medical that is imported to the United States, there might still be an opportunity here for food retailers and suppliers to work with the government on something more constructive than fending off consumer outrage. But as reported last month in SN, 92% of respondents to a recent Consumer Reports poll said they are in favor of mandated labels.

“It's a fundamental right of the consumer to know where their food came from,” said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs for PCC Natural Markets. “Our shoppers have wanted to know this information for years, and we've responded to what they want.”

Hardly a retailer to shy away from controversial topics, PCC recently announced that it would become 100% COOL compliant by the end of this month, and issued a press release arguing that the move had not increased costs at the eight-store natural food cooperative.