Itchmo Forums for Cats & Dogs Brought to you by Itchmo: Essential news, humor and info for cats, dogs and pet owners.
March 06, 2021, 05:38:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Go To Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Text of Pet Food Safety bill, H.R. 3580, signed Sept. 27 Too little, too late?  (Read 3772 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
« on: September 27, 2007, 09:00:53 PM »

Here's the pet food safety text from H.R. 3580, signed Sept. 27, 2007, by the President.
Is it too little, too late? Or a small victory? Or lame and useless?


Congress finds that--

(1) the safety and integrity of the United States food supply are vital to public health, to public confidence in the food supply,
and to the success of the food sector of the Nation's economy;

(2) illnesses and deaths of individuals and companion animals caused by contaminated food--

(A) have contributed to a loss of public confidence in food safety; and

(B) have caused significant economic losses to manufacturers and producers not responsible for contaminated food items;

(3) the task of preserving the safety of the food supply of the United States faces tremendous pressures with regard to--

(A) emerging pathogens and other contaminants and the ability to detect all forms of contamination;

(B) an increasing volume of imported food from a wide variety of countries; and

(C) a shortage of adequate resources for monitoring and inspection;

(4) according to the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture, the United States is increasing the amount of
food that it imports such that--

(A) from 2003 to 2007, the value of food imports has increased from $45,600,000,000 to $64,000,000,000; and

(B) imported food accounts for 13 percent of the average American diet including 31 percent of fruits, juices, and nuts,
9.5 percent of red meat, and 78.6 percent of fish and shellfish; and

(5) the number of full-time equivalent Food and Drug Administration employees conducting inspections has decreased from 2003 to 2007.


(a) Processing and Ingredient Standards- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (referred to in this title as the `Secretary'), in consultation with the Association of American Feed Control Officials
and other relevant stakeholder groups, including veterinary medical associations, animal health organizations, and pet food manufacturers, shall by regulation establish--

(1) ingredient standards and definitions with respect to pet food;

(2) processing standards for pet food; and

(3) updated standards for the labeling of pet food that include nutritional and ingredient information.

(b) Early Warning Surveillance Systems and Notification During Pet Food Recalls- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall establish an early warning and surveillance system to identify adulteration of the pet food supply and
outbreaks of illness associated with pet food. In establishing such system, the Secretary shall--

(1) consider using surveillance and monitoring mechanisms similar to, or in coordination with, those used to monitor human or animal health, such as the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) and PulseNet of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food Emergency Response Network of the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture, and the National Animal Health Laboratory Network of the Department of Agriculture;

(2) consult with relevant professional associations and private sector veterinary hospitals;

(3) work with the National Companion Animal Surveillance Program, the Health Alert Network, or other notification networks as appropriate to inform veterinarians and relevant stakeholders during any recall of pet food; and

(4) use such information and conduct such other activities as the Secretary deems appropriate.


The Secretary shall, during an ongoing recall of human or pet food regulated by the Secretary--

(1) work with companies, relevant professional associations, and other organizations to collect and aggregate information pertaining to the recall;

(2) use existing networks of communication, including electronic forms of information dissemination, to enhance the quality and speed of communication with the public; and

(3) post information regarding recalled human and pet foods on the Internet Web site of the Food and Drug Administration in a single location, which shall include a searchable database of recalled human foods and a searchable database of recalled pet foods, that is easily accessed and understood by the public."

« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2007, 09:05:48 AM »

Jeez, all
After all this time, Congress finds the manufacturers and producers not responsible for
contaminated foods. Who is, then? Doesn't that raise anyone's hackles just a bit?

And they're putting AAFCO in charge of rewriting pet food labels and pet food food standards. Excuse
me, but I thought AAFCO and its heavily-weighted Pet Food Institute members were
the same guys who got us in this mess in the first place. Isn't anyone mad?

Just opinions, of course, based on looking at this situation, but I'm kind of dumbfounded
that Congress fell so short of the mark of improvement.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2007, 02:20:42 PM by 3catkidneyfailure » Logged
Hero Member
Posts: 10517

My RB Angels Elvis, 1991-2010, and Twit, 2001-2010

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2007, 09:33:34 AM »

.....success of the food sector of the Nation's economy;

(B) have caused significant economic losses to manufacturers and producers not responsible for contaminated food items;

IMO, all they are concerned about is the bottom line of big business.  Period.

BS on the "not responsible for contaminated food items" part.  Since when are manufacturers not reponsible for ensuring the safety of products they produce for humans or animals?  Is this a new law the politicians snuck in while we were sleeping?

Eventually they will understand,
Replied the glorious cat
For I will whisper into their hearts
That I am always with them
I just am....forever and ever and ever.
Poem for Cats, author unknown

"A kitten in the animal kingdom is like a rosebud in a garden", author unknown
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2007, 02:52:37 PM »

This apparently is my forum thead to rant on. So I'll finish the rant, and
then be quiet, as I'm watching the second of my three cats die from the
pet food recall.

Do you see one penalty, civil or criminal, for all the death and destruction caused by
the pet food recall in this bill? I don't, not one, for the death of all these "companion animals,"
as the bill is so politely phrased. They aren't companion animals; they're family members to
many of us, bozos. And Congress has to do better than this to protect our fur-kids and
our kids and our grandkids from what is being done by producing and selling contaminated
food. H.R. 3580 just isn't good enough, not for the pets, and certainly not for the people.

« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2007, 03:30:59 PM »

3cat I hear ya. I have one dead, two sick, three ok (I hope).  I can't say here what I want to say.  The language is too foul.  It all has to do with the stinking lobbies.  They give the politicians the campaign contributions.  The people we get to vote for are the ones with the big enough war chests to run for office in the first place. They protect the source of the money, not us. HR 3580 is a bunch of words that mean nothing.  When it comes to protection of the people (including their fur kids), they have forgotten us.  Nobody's ranting here and I don't understand why.  We have to get the clowns' attention.  This was a useless bill they can put on their resume and claim they voted for food safety.  Just like the FDA, this bill has no teeth and no funding.  It's newspaper fodder. I hate it and right now I hate them.
Sr. Member
Posts: 252

« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2007, 03:35:37 PM »

I agree this bill is a waste it still puts the horse thiefs in control of guarding the horse barn. Isn't this bill 500 pages ? Doesn't toilet paper come in a 500 sheet roll?
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2007, 08:16:25 PM »

Can't resist, yl. Love the tp-thing. Perhaps for the BS standards and new labeling
about to be produced by AAFCO?
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2007, 05:49:31 PM »

I want to believe you're right, Klondike.

This article in Scientific American from September 26th, 2007, even says that the food safety system
is in crisis and talks about November's recommendations for the Dingell bill on reforming and funding
the FDA:

Maybe everyone could write the Dingle committee, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and tell them how far
short of fixing things House Bill 3580 is.

Dingell Introduces H.R. 3610, the "Food and Drug Safety Import Act of 2007"
Rep. John D. Dingell, along with Reps. Frank Pallone (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today introduced legislation that would dramatically improve our country’s system for ensuring the safety of imported food and drugs:

Don't skip over the Summary PDF of the bill. It proposes that user fees be placed on companies that import foods to cover the cost of inspecting,
and, imagine, testing conducted by the FDA. I believe we could all get behind that, since food companies that import ingredients have field
tested on fur-kids and people to avoid having to do it themselves, with the result of the deadly pet food recall, among other tragedies,
like the deaths of children from swallowing lead. That's something I could support.

Perhaps we could even convince Mr. Dingell to include some kind of provision for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to conduct inspections and
testing of pet food with some of these user fees. After all, part of the Veterinary Oath is the protection of the health and safety of feed animals.
We could try.

But, continued rant, if you read the whole bill, you will not find one civil or criminal penalty imposed on food or drug importers or producers for
importing contaminated food. Which raises the question again, who is responsible for this if not the food or drug importer or producer???

You can send your comments directly to the committee at:

« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 06:54:12 PM by 3catkidneyfailure » Logged
Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Copyright 2007 Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines | Sitemap