Food Safety

FDA oversight lacking in US food facility inspections

FDAWhile FDA is responsible for safeguarding the nation’s food supply, it has increasingly relied on state agencies to conduct inspections on its behalf. However, the 2009 Salmonella outbreak caused by contamination at a Peanut Corporation of America facility, inspected several times by a state agency working for the FDA, shows a degree of FDA oversight is missing, according to the recent report, Vulnerabilities in FDA’s Oversight of State Food Facility Inspections, published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Because of concerns about food facility inspections conducted by state agencies, this review and report was requested by the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and related agencies. The purpose of the review was four fold:

1. To determine the extent to which the FDA enters into contracts with states to inspect food facilities.

2. To determine the extent to which FDA ensures that states complete the inspections required by their contracts.

3. To determine whether FDA ensures state inspections are properly classified and violations are remedied.

4. To determine the extent to which FDA audits state inspections and addresses deficiencies identified by these audits.

FDA oversees state inspections through its Contract Inspection Audit Program, which is designed to verify states conduct inspections that satisfy the requirements of their contracts. FDA requires a minimum of 7 percent of a state’s contract inspections be audited each year. This minimum percentage (also known as the minimum audit rate) ensures states are conducting adequate inspections to meet the conditions of the contract.

The findings of the review uncovered several issues. In fiscal year (FY) 2009, 59 percent of FDA’s food inspections were conducted by state inspectors compared to only 42 percent in FY 2004.

In eight states, FDA failed to ensure the required number of inspections was completed. In addition, FDA paid for many inspections that were incomplete. The eight states were responsible for a total of 2,170 inspections; however, these states failed to complete the inspections required in their contracts. When inspections are incomplete, FDA’s ability to identify facilities with potentially serious food safety violations is compromised. In four additional states, FDA paid for inspection visits, though payment for visits was not specified in the states’ contracts.

FDA did not ensure all state inspections were properly classified and all violations were remedied. FDA officials responsible for 11 of 41 states were unclear how to properly classify contract inspections. In these 11 states, FDA officials reported they would not assign official, action-indicated classifications to state inspections under any circumstances, contrary to FDA guidance.

Finally, FDA failed to complete the required number of audits for one-third of the states and did not always follow up on identified systemic problems. For 14 of 41 states with contracts, FDA did not complete the required number of audits and, therefore, failed to meet its minimum audit rate.

The report recommendations suggest FDA:

• Ensure all contract inspections are completed, properly documented and appropriately paid for

• Ensure contract inspections are properly classified in accordance with FDA guidance

• Ensure all inspection violations are remedied by routinely tracking all actions taken to correct violations

• Ensure the minimum audit rate is met in all states

• Address any systemic problems identified by audits.

FDA agreed to most of the recommendations, but did note that certain violations may not be suitable for inspection follow-up, and that other approaches may be used to track such violations.

To read the entire report, download it from the Office of Inspector General.

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to Food Engineering Magazine.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.



Image Galleries

IPPE 2015

The 2015 International Production and Processing Expo (IPPE) was held in Atlanta at the Georgia World Congress Center, Jan. 27-29. More than 30,000 poultry, meat and feed industry representatives attended the event to interact with the 1,288 exhibitors on the show floor that covered more than 490,000 net square feet. At the show exhibitors demonstrated innovations in equipment, supplies and services utilized by firm in the production and processing of meat, poultry, eggs and feed products.


Burns & McDonnell project manager RJ Hope and senior project engineer Justin Hamilton discuss the distinctions between Food Safety and Food Defense as well as the implications for food manufacturers of the Food Safety Modernization Act.
More Podcasts

Food Engineering

Food Engineering February 2015 Cover

2015 February

In this February 2015 issue of Food Engineering, we explore how energy waste caused by leaks in compressed air, steam and water or faulty building insulation/seals can be reduced with the right equipment and knowledge.

Table Of Contents Subscribe

FSMA Audit

What is the is most important step you have taken to become ready for a FSMA audit?
View Results Poll Archive


Food Authentication Using Bioorganic Molecules

This text provides critical tools and data needed to augment routine food analysis and enhance food safety by aiding in the detection of counterfeit, and potentially deleterious, foods.

More Products

Clear Seas Research

Clear Seas ResearchWith access to over one million professionals and more than 60 industry-specific publications,Clear Seas Research offers relevant insights from those who know your industry best. Let us customize a market research solution that exceeds your marketing goals.


FE recent tweets

facebook_40.pngtwitter_40px.pngyoutube_40px.png linkedin_40px.pngGoogle +

Food Master

Food Engineering Food Master 2015Food Master 2015 is now available!

Where the buying process begins in the food and beverage manufacturing market. 

Visit to learn more.