Nary a soul at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday doubted the premise behind Chairman John D. Dingell’s latest legislative priority: that the Food and Drug Administration is utterly unequipped to protect the public against hazards associated with the surging volume of food imports into the United States. But virtually every member at the Health Subcommittee hearing had concerns about Dingell’s solution.

But that doesn’t mean his bill (HR 3610) to beef up FDA resources and to arm the agency with new regulatory powers is dead — far from it. With the public alarmed that lax import controls threaten the safety of the food they buy for their pets, the toys they buy for their children, the toothpaste they use to brush their teeth and the seafood they buy at the supermarket, lawmakers are eager for a legislative solution and view Dingell’s measure as a flawed but viable fix.

Introduced on Sept. 20, the bill is very similar to a draft version he released for discussion earlier this year (See related story, CQ HealthBeat, Aug. 6, 2007). It would impose a user fee on food and drug companies to fund a larger number of FDA inspections at the border. The money also would fund more laboratory analyses to assure that food is safe enough to enter the United States. To funnel imports into ports equipped to screen products, the proposal only would allow FDA-regulated products to come into cities with FDA safety labs. Labels would have to state the country or countries of origin for food products and their ingredients.

Under the bill, FDA would have the power to mandate food recalls. New tests would have to be developed to identify contamination in processed foods. Food processing firms would have to register annually with the FDA and the agency would have to inspect more of such facilities, both abroad and in the United States. Foreign facilities importing food into the country would have to be certified by FDA has having adequate safety controls.

Democrats joined Republicans in expressing concern during the hearing about the enormous economic stakes involved in the legislation. Texas Democrat Gene Green said the bill would cost many jobs in Houston, Laredo, and other cities by ending food imports into those cities. Only 13 of the some 300 current ports of entry for food imports have FDA labs and therefore could continue to receive the products under the bill, Green said.

Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky echoed Green’s concerns, and said the bill also would exclude Chicago as well as Boston as ports of entry. Utah Democrat Jim Matheson said the measure might create “a more protectionist trade agenda than would be good for this country. We should recognize that we are in a global marketplace,” he said.

Georgia Republican Nathan Deal, the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, noted the potential for America’s trading partners retaliating against the bill’s new import controls by imposing their own restrictions on U.S. products. Poultry, a big part of Georgia’s economy, is the frequent target of such retaliation. “It’s important to recognize the complexities,” he said.

User fees required under the measure also drew concern, both from industry groups and from Democrats. “We are concerned that a user fee on imports would violate our trade agreements by creating a preference for domestic sources of food products and ingredients,” testified Cal Dooley, president of the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association. “We’re also concerned that such a fee could invite other countries to place similar fees on our food exports. By charging $50 per line of food, the user fee in the Food and Drug Import Safety Act places an unfair burden on importers of many distinct products.”

But Schakowsky voiced a different worry: That industry groups would gain undue influence over FDA if companies funded the new safety efforts.

Lawmakers said constituents at town hall meetings in August expressed particular interest in “Country of origin” labeling requirements. But Jill Hollingsworth of the Food Marketing Institute said in testimony that the requirement would be unworkable, given the large number of countries that serve as the source of food ingredients. “Identifying one or 20 countries from which food and its ingredients originated does not enhance the safety of a product,” Hollingsworth said. “FMI believes the resources to implement such a system would be far better spent on measures to improve the safety of food products.”

Testifying on behalf of the Bush administration, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy Randall L. Lutter said the White House has not taken a position on the bill but that his agency stands ready to provide technical assistance in negotiations on the bill. Under questioning by California Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, Lutter admitted the agency isn’t doing enough inspections. And pressed by Eshoo on whether conducting physical inspections of only one percent of food imports is adequate, Lutter said, “We think there is a lot of room for improvement.”

But Lutter also urged the committee to await recommendations in an “action plan” due in November that reflects the work of an administration task force on import safety. He told Dingell that he looked forward to working with him on the action plan.

The bill also aims to address the threat of counterfeit drugs coming into the country, an aspect of the legislation that Indiana Republican Steve Buyer aims to influence. Republican colleagues said Buyer is fast becoming an expert on the threat posed by counterfeit drugs and urged Democrats to make his recommendations a part of the legislation. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did not address the user fee issue in its written testimony, but did call for a variety of steps to better guard against the threat of counterfeit products. It urged tougher regulation of drug re-packagers, stricter licensing requirements for wholesalers, and tougher criminal penalties for counterfeiters.

Lawmakers and witnesses expressed agreement that a variety of steps must be taken to address the safety of food products before they reach U.S. borders. They also agreed that FDA needs far more resources. “Preventative control systems implemented by the industry and performance standards monitored and enforced by the government must form the heart of needed reforms to FDA’s legal structure,” said the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group, in a summary of its testimony.

Despite the complexities of cutting a deal, the various players who would help fashion the policy seem serious about doing so. “The emergence of coalitions of traditionally estranged consumer and industry organizations gives Congress a unique opportunity to appeal to many constituencies as it rebuilds the Food and Drug Administration,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.