RE: USA's non-existent SANITARY FOOD TRANSPORTATION ACT

["Campbell, Jon" <Campbell@Rational.Com>]

Tony,

     I believe that what they meant by "motor oil" was not, in fact,
automobile engine oil, but compressor oil. This is just a surmise, but I
believe what happened is another Yusho incident: coolant or hydraulic oil
from a machine in the factory getting mixed in with the product. I have not
seen any PCB/dioxin cogener analysis of the contamination, but it seems
highly unlikely that the manufacturer of animal/vegetable oil would
purposely dispose of toxic waste in this way, and the concentrations any
other way (shipping containers, etc) seem unlikely.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: ttweed@wildrockies.org [mailto:ttweed@wildrockies.org]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 5:14 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L
Subject: USA's non-existent SANITARY FOOD TRANSPORTATION ACT


EPA/OECA/(sub)Office of Compliance's 'Profile of the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industry' (EPA310-R-95-018, 9/95) briefly mentions the
above law, saying its aim is to prevent contamination of food from shipping
containers previously used to transport hazmat.  As many have, I had heard
vague horror stories and allegations that this was a poorly regulated area,
so I did some web searching, had a talk or 2, and got an info packet from
DoT's RSPA (Research & Special Project Admin., responsible for hazmat
transport) about the time the Belgian dioxin animal-feed contamination
scandal was breaking, so I thought I'd use that possible connection to
distribute this informative post more widely.

[Btw, another (unlikely) source of the feed contamination ultimate source,
if it was actually contaminated w/ dioxin-laced motor-oil, is the
halogenated corrosion scavengers added to leaded gasoline (e.g. ethene
dibromide).  Waste oil is often highly mixed w/ gasoline, given it is
collected from garages & service shops.  But I can't see very high levels
of dioxins in gasoline, to account for the 1,500X the 'safe' dose that
ended up in the chickens or their feed (greater amnts of dioxins are
created & emitted out the tailpipe when the gasoline is burned in vehicle
engines).  I wonder if diesel fuels can be a concentrated source of dioxins
in some way, and were involved in this episode?]
---


BASICALLY, FSTA IS A STRONG REGULATORY PROGRAM THAT HAS NEVER BEEN
IMPLEMENTED.

According to a DoT OIG (Office Inspector General) '98 report requested by
the Senate's Commerce, Science & Transportation Cmtee,  SFTA's passage was
driven by 1989 media reports that trucking companies carried garbage,
chemicals & food in the same bulk containers.  Hearings ID'ed the
'backhauling' practice (doing this on the return, normally empty, trip),
and a '90 GAO report revealed no record keeping of mixed trucks was
required.  FSTA was enacted 3 Nov. '90.

        IT HAS STRONG FINDINGS:
* Americans Are Entitled To Receive Food Not Made Unsafe By Certain
Transportation Practices
* Americans Are Threatened By Transport--In Rail Or Motor Vehicles Used To
Transport Food--Of Products Potentially Harmful
* These Practices & Risks Are Unnecessary, And Such Practices Must Be
Terminated


Congress assigned implementation & oversight of FSTA to DoT.  Always
apparently believing this was wrong, and after missing the statutory
deadline, RSPA eventually consulted, as required, w/ EPA, DoA(FSIS) and
HHS(FDA)  [USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service has a narrow food
inspection program, specifically for meat, poultry & eggs; FDA's FD&CAct
food safety mandate is broad] and issued an Announced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) and a proposed rule, which was never acted on.  Nor have
they issued the required lists of safe & unsafe non-food products, or
trained inspectors in this sub-area of food safety (they did produce a
training video).

In '95, a year or 2 after the proposed rule was issued, budget conferees
(appointed by newly Republican Speaker & Sen Maj. Leader) stated their
concern over a new bureaucracy in DoT, when FDA already has an ideally
suited one, and directed DoT to resolve the implementation of FSTA in
consultation w/ FDA & FSIS, and urged the authorizing Cmtees to write
legislation for shared enforcement (RSPA/DoT inspectors being willing to
play a role in reporting apparent violations).  This was attempted in the
ISTEA (the basic transportation act) reauthorization (NEX-TEA97, title
XII), but it failed (NEX-TEA eventually passed as TEA-21).  RSPA then
requested $300k in FY00 (the current budget in Congress) to implement FSTA,
but their authorizing subcmttees in the House & Senate recently rejected
that.

DoT's recent OIG report makes a good case (tho I'd like to hear any
opposing arguments) that DoT doesn't have FDA's biochemists and other food
safety specialists that enable detection and regulation of small quantities
of contaminants--rather their inspectors are trained in the inspection of
the outside of vehicles (further, DoT doing these food safety inspections
could cause food spoilage)..  FDA, otoh, has 4,000 food safety inspectors
and a system of hazard analysis and critical control points in the food
mass assembly/processing chain.

Roughly, FSTA, in addition to the above lists of non-foods, requires:
specific standards for recordkeeping, container markings, labels etc;
appropriate container construction materials; decontamination/cleaning;
prohibits the use/arranging for use etc of unsafe dual food/hazmat use
containers; mandates disclosure to the motor carrier by the shipper; and
mandates dedicated containers for asbestos.  Food safety inspections are to
be done under DoT's existing hazmat and general safety inspection
authorities (including state employees funded by those federal inspector
dollars), and a training program "for inspectors to conduct vigorous
enforcement of this Act and [its] regulations."  Certain things are
discretionary to DoT, such as the degree of packaging isolation to be
required, waivers, and the appropriate compliance & enforcement measures.
DoT shall have the same specified powers as under sec. 109 of the hazmat
transportation law (HMTA, later HMTUSA]

RSPA did promulgate a reg under HMTUSA that carriers may not transport
placarded poisons in the same vehicle w/ animal feed.  Rail cars w/ such a
placard that show leakage must be thoroughly cleaned, unless they're a
dedicated railcar.  (sounds pretty narrow...)

Perhaps w/ the high profile but typically Clinton-like amorphous/voluntary
food safety initiative;  and w/ all the continuation of outbreaks of
microbial or other food contamination that prompted it, this latest FSTA
action by Congress is a signal that FSTA can--politically--still be
transferred to FDA and implemented.  ENVIROS SHOULD CONSIDER SUING DoT TO
ENFORCE FSTA AS A PRESSURE POINT TO GET THINGS MOVING!!!

Tony Tweedale

Causality is a concept not subject to empirical demonstration. -David Hume
(1711-'76)

Temperate but endangered planet.  Enjoys weather, northern lights,
continental drift.  Seeks caring relationship with intelligent life form.
      -Friends of the Earth