How Would An FDA User Fee Affect The Food Industry?

By Isaac Fletcher, contributing writer, Food Online

Added user fees do not immediately come across as something for the food industry to be excited about. However, with a distinct lack of funding and the potential for improved influence with regard to regulation and education, limited-time FDA user fees could be more beneficial for food manufacturers than they appear on the surface.

With members of the food industry already subject to a variety of fees, the United Fresh Produce Association and Produce Marketing Association (PMA) have come out against added user fees as a means of implementing FSMA regulations. Operators within the industry are already subjected to user fees, such as USDA destination and shipping point inspections, PACA actions, and others. However, food industry advocates contend that since all consumers benefit, costs associated with food safety oversight should be shared by all. The point to be considered is whether or not some kind of FDA user, registration, or inspection fee would pay off for the industry.

Introducing user fees to be paid by food-making companies as a source of funding for the implementation of food safety regulations and enhanced education among the grower community could help ensure that funds are applied carefully and effectively. The argument could be made that giving food companies a stake in FSMA funding will help prevent frivolous regulations and unnecessary costs later down the road.

In order for the FDA to be able to properly proceed with finalized regulations and implementation, the agency needs funding. The PMA is looking to Congress to provide an additional $109.5 million of funding to assist the FDA with implementation and education. Education will play an important role within an evolved regulatory environment, the food industry needs to be properly educated before compliance, inspections, and verification can occur. However, as it stands, there is only about $11.5 million available in the budget for education and assistance for the industry.

PMA representatives also argue that education for growers, producers, and manufacturers should take priority over training FDA and state inspectors. Additionally, with limited funds available, the 12 states that produce 90 percent of fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S. should receive funding proportional to their importance in specialty crop production. Departments of agriculture may act as a source of education for growers as well, and provide resources for performing assessments on food safety practices to be better prepared for the coming regulatory changes.

FSMA regulations will be finalized in August and October, going into effect roughly two months later. The preventive control rule will give companies roughly a year to achieve compliance, and the produce rule will allow roughly two years for large farms to reach compliance.

As the food industry itself has a large stake in food safety regulation and legislation, a limited-time industry user fee for food safety inspections could prove beneficial for the industry. If user fees are adopted as a source of regulatory funding, the food industry may offer some influence with the FDA in education, implementation, and compliance.