U.S. Fish Inspection Bill Rides in Wake of Consumer Demand : Reports of unwholesome seafood come as Americans are eating more of this alternative to meat. FDA efforts are criticized as inadequate.

A recent report on seafood contamination has inspired Congress to take up the slippery issue of fish inspection once again.

A year ago, a bill that would have established a mandatory inspection program died a quick death because of jurisdictional disputes. This time, however, congressional leaders have made progress.

A bill introduced in the Senate, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) and leaders of three key Senate committees, would subject seafood to the same inspections that meat and poultry must undergo.

Where one agency now has the responsibility for seafood inspections, the bill proposes dividing the task among three: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

“The logjam is broken,” said a Senate staffer, adding that more detailed discussions over precise responsibilities would soon be the subject of congressional hearings on the bill.

BACKGROUND: Americans are eating more fish than ever--almost 25% more than 10 years ago--but recent reports, particularly one from Consumers Union, found that large amounts of fish are contaminated with chemicals, parasites and other pollutants undetectable by shoppers.

Seafood industry officials have hotly disputed that conclusion. They contend that seafood sold in the United States is safe to eat. Nevertheless, consumer groups are demanding that fish be subject to mandatory inspection.

Since the passage of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938, the responsibility for seafood inspection has rested largely with the Food and Drug Administration, although the departments of Interior and Commerce and state and local governments have had smaller roles in the process.

In 1990, the FDA, responding to the legislative deadlock in Congress, stepped up its inspections. It nearly doubled the number of inspectors, to 325, and increased its inspection budget to $40.5 million from $25 million.

Critics complained, however, that the FDA lacked the means to regulate the industry.

” . . . Starved for money, it has used (its) authority sparingly,” the Consumers Union report said. In 1989, for example, the FDA checked only 1,604 fish samples for contaminants. It said the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with an annual budget of $500 million for its program of meat and poultry inspections, checks 185,000 samples annually.

The report also criticized seafood industry practices at almost every stage. It said 30% of the fish it sampled were of “poor” quality; almost half were contaminated with bacteria from animal and human feces. A large number of the fish were falsely labeled; others were deceptively advertised as “fresh” even though they had been frozen.

Perhaps most alarming were the high levels of mercury, dioxin, pesticides, PCBs and other chemical substances found in many samplings of fish.

While consumers can protect themselves from most bacteria by cooking the fish, there is little they can do about chemical contaminants; some accumulate in the body and have been linked to cancer and developmental damage in children. Mandatory inspection for such chemicals has become the focal point of recent calls for legislation.

ISSUES: The fish industry, which has been reluctant to support further required inspection, is waiting for the hearings before it decides whether to endorse the legislation. “We’re in favor of a better inspection program. . . . This bill, however, contains several provisions which have raised some concerns,” said Lee J. Weddig, executive vice president of the National Fisheries Institute, a trade association of marketers and processors.

He complained that no other food industry is subject to the same tolerance levels that would be implemented by the bill; and the whistle-blower protection clause the measure proposes would be “the same for the fish industry as the nuclear power industry,” he said.

“Government inspection is not a silver bullet that will eliminate every problem with food-borne illness. . . . No food is without risk. Seafood is no exception,” said Weddig.

But several lawmakers--including Mitchell and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored the bill, agree with advocacy groups that a strong mandatory inspection program is needed. They say that the FDA standards for contamination are not high enough and the agency has not enforced compliance with the standards it has set.

“Seafood is the only flesh food not subject to mandatory inspection . . . (it) is responsible for the largest traceable outbreaks of food poisoning or illness” said another advocate, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who cited findings of the Center for Disease Control.

The problem until now has been in deciding on the right federal agency--or agencies--to do the job.

OUTLOOK: The proposed legislation has been praised by both congressional leaders and key consumer groups. For lawmakers, it reaches a cherished compromise by delegating various inspection responsibilities to the executive agencies they oversee.

“It has an excellent chance of passing in the Senate. I think we can work it out in the House so that we can put it on the President’s desk this fall,” said Jon Haber, an aide to Leahy.

Many fear, however, that President Bush would veto the bill. The Administration has long talked of proposing its own legislation; it favors using taxes on seafood to pay for stepped-up inspections. “I don’t think it will work,” Haber said of that concept.

Senate’s Seafood Inspection Bill

Key provisions of the seafood inspection bill introduced in the Senate:

* Mandatory USDA inspection of imported seafood and foreign processing plants.

* USDA sampling of fish sold in supermarkets for bacteria, pesticides and other contaminants.

* Food standards, set by the FDA, to reduce contamination in fish.

* Tough FDA criminal and civil penalties for selling contaminated fish.

* State inspection of domestic processing plants.

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration power to close contaminated

state waters to fishing.

* NOAA authority to board and inspect fishing vessels at sea.

* Identical safety standards for imported and domestic fish.

* A ban on importing fish contaminated with illegal pesticide residues.

* A nationwide effort that would teach consumers how to choose, store and prepare fish properly.

* Strong whistle-blower protection for workers in the industry who report substandard processing.

Source: Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry