Reinventing the Programmatic and Legal Basis of Food Safety: The Wyoming Experience.

Abstract

On March 13, 2000, the governor of Wyoming signed into law a comprehensive farm-to-table food safety statute, The new law collected all food safety requirements into a single statute and consolidated food inspection activities in the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. A sweeping reform of state food safety programs eliminated the cumbersome patchwork of laws that legislators had been amending for a century. To accomplish this formidable task, Governor Jim Geringer had authorized the formation of the Wyoming Foad Safety Task Force in 1991. The task force comprised local, state, and federal government agencies; legislators; the University of Wyoming; and segments of private industry Using a strategic-planning process to build consensus, the task force developed a new system that was unanimously supported. This unified approach contributed to the success of the legislative effort.

Introduction

Wyoming's first food safety legislation, the Wyoming Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, was passed in 1911. Other food safety statutes followed, and all have been amended through what can best be described as a cutand-paste approach. None of these efforts were much more than additions of new commodities to a growing list of foods in which the state had declared an interest. This patchwork of laws, sewn together in a quilt of fragmented jurisdictions and administrative approaches, grew increasingly more cumbersome over time.

By 1997, changes in the food program had long outrun the structure of state statutes, and the food safety program found itself in danger of acting outside the authority and instructions of the legislature as dictated in the existing state laws, A decision was made by the director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) to take on the once-in-a-century task of starting over. In October 1997, Governor Jim Geringer authorized the formation of the Wyoming Food Safety Task Force.

The task force finished its work in August of 1999, and on March 9, 2000, the Wyoming legislature passed the centerpiece of the task force's proposal for a new food safety system. Known as the Wyoming Food Safety Act of 2000, this landmark legislation was signed by the governor on March 13, 2000, at the state capitol in Cheyenne. This article presents the major accomplishments of the task force and describes the legislative process.

The Wyoming Food Safety Task Force

Several elements were critical to the success of this task force. First was acceptance of risk, because the group was being asked to design a statewide food safety system from scratch, disregarding how it may have been structured in the past. Most organizations are understandably reluctant to undertake this kind of sweeping change, not knowing the outcome or the direction of such an openended charge. The unpredictability of the outcome was even greater since the group undertaking the discussion included so many participants from outside the food safety program. In this case, however, WDA judged that programmatic experiments already undertaken had fueled an operational shift beyond the old statutory model and that a new foundation was required.

The second critical element was broad representation, which meant that stakeholders should be included in the process. Therefore, the task force comprised local, state, and federal government agencies; legislators; the University of Wyoming; and several segments of private industry. In addition, those known to endorse as well as those known to object to new directions were purposely brought into the effort.

Once the group's composition was decided, the director of WDA gave a clear but empowering charge:

1. Using consensus methods, decide what the state food safety program outcomes should be.

2. Describe how we would go about achieving this: How do we best ensure that the foods produced and/or prepared in Wyoming are as safe as they possibly can be? What are the most effective and efficient ways to achieve this? What role(s) should the different state agencies and other stakeholders play in a partnership effort aimed at reducing foodborne illness and improving the safety of our food supply? How can Wyoming continue to build a reputation of having safe food products, thus adding a marketing advantage to products produced in Wyoming?

3. Write a proposal for a single food safety statute that would replace all existing laws and establish the system that you have designed.

4. Produce a report that would be presented to the WDA director no later than October 1,1999.

Consensus-building methodology was possibly the most critical element in the success of this project. Early in the planning process, the Task Force decided never to act or proceed by taking a vote. Traditionally, groups as diverse as this task force eventually reach an impasse. At such points--and after all sides of the debate have been considered--tradition dictates that the group conduct a vote and that the most persuasive side win the day This method has the undesirable effect of automatically creating a "minority report." Because sweeping change like that which was likely to result from this effort is difficult to move through any political body the more unified the task force could be, the better. Every facet of the food safety system was discussed until all members unanimously supported the final decision. This approach forced many compromises but resulted in a unified front when the proposal finally went before the Wyoming legislature.

The framework for the 22 months of discussion and decision making was a strategic planning process. The group began by defining long-term and intermediate outcomes, clearly defining the current situation, including all assets and barriers, then moving on to describe the statewide food safety system it would like to see. A position was hammered out on the question of who should assume which responsibilities in this new system, and, finally a legal basis for the system was designed.

The New Model

The new legal model for Wyoming places all food safety under a single statute and repeals all other commodity-based statutes. The statute is a modification of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) and is written in general terms--avoiding prescriptive language--simply requiring foods to be safe and unadulterated. By placing only the outcome requirements within the statute and authorizing rule-making, the new approach allows the food program continually to update Wyoming's food safety regulatory efforts without going back to the legislature. Because industry representatives on the task force were concerned about the degree of power this "administrative approach" gave to the food program, they proposed a Governor's Food Safety Council. This council is composed of local- and state-government representatives, industry representatives, and consumer representatives. It reviews and makes recommendations on all proposed food safety regulations before they are submitted for public comment. This council ensur es industry participation in the rule-making process and consensus building that continues beyond the work of the task force.

The task force easily decided that inspection activities should be consolidated into one agency A lengthy debate occurred over the roles of WDA, the Wyoming Department of Health (WDH), and the state's six local food programs. The task force reached consensus on the roles these agencies should play along what it considered to be natural lines. The expertise of WDA is in food science-the art, science, and technology of producing, shipping, processing, and preparing foods. The task force believed those strengths matched the day-to-day work involved in carrying out a food safety inspection and education program. By contrast, WDH, task force members agreed, should take the lead in human-health issues--investigating outbreaks, excluding ill employees, and consulting with the food program on health issues. Because human health is affected by the decisions of the food safety program, WDH was given oversight abilities. If, for example, WDA did not close an establishment or failed to take regulatory action when necess ary to protect public health, the state health officer could act. In this model, then, the state health officer has the authority to initiate action against a food license to prevent the transmission of disease if WDA fails to take action. Also, the task force supported the concept of local food safety programs but thought that each county and city should decide whether it wants a local program (as already provided for in an existing state statute). Because no local equivalent to WDA exists in Wyoming, local food programs would need to mirror both the state health and state agriculture activities.

This compromise between consolidating the food program into one agency and preserving a strong role for each constituency (health and agriculture) was written into the legislative proposal. The two departments are required to collaborate in the joint rulemaking process. At the beginning of each year, WDH must report to WDA on the epidemiology of foodborne illness in Wyoming. At the end of each year, WDA must report back to WDH about the activities that the food safety program has conducted to improve food safety.

The Legislative Process

Early sponsorship by a legislator serving on the task force allowed the group to seek bill preparation from the Legislative Services Office. Debate on the proposed bill was actually fairly light, with most amendments relating to the section of the legislation concerning which types of activities to include in the licensing provisions; most of the debate related to small, home-style food service activities connected with community or nonprofit food service activities. The bill originated in the senate and passed both houses; because small changes had been made in the House, concurrence from the senate was required, and it came on March 9, 2000, On March 13, the governor signed into law the new Wyoming Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act at a ceremony in the Cabinet Room, with members of the task force in attendance.

The following actions directly contributed to the success of the legislative effort:

1. Including legislators in the task force--two state representatives and one state senator were invited to participate on the task force. Two of those invited participated in the group's debate for the entire 22 months that the task force operated. Over time, the state senator became one of the strongest supporters of the proposed changes to the food safety system. His advice about the legislative process, his behind-the-scenes discussions with fellow legislators, and his cheerleading for the task force proved invaluable.

2. Obtaining support from the Governor's Office amid department directors--from the start of this effort through to the legislative victory, support from the director of WDA and the governor was crucial. Time was spent up front to ensure that these key individuals were on board and excited by an attractive vision of what might be possible. The beginning of the process was a time when it was critical that a clear goal be articulated. Someone had to be able to sell an idea to these political leaders, and someone had to inspire them. People in these positions are likely to be realists and to present a good first test by fire for any proposed set of changes. Without the solid backing of these two key leaders, the task force would not have enjoyed the political support needed for the tough decisions ahead and the length of the work.

3. Building grassroots support--legislators want to know the pulse of their constituents on any issue. Knowing that one of their first reactions is to check back home, task force members (from all over the state) built support in their communities so that legislators would find recognition of and support for the proposed changes. Industry members of the task force played an important role in helping to construct grassroots support around the state long before any legislative proposal went forward. The task force developed talking points and white papers and widely disseminated them to all constituencies. State and local regulators were provided with these same talking points so that they would be informed if asked about the proposed new directions. The broad inclusiveness of the task force and the consensus building paid off during this effort; strong buy-in and excitement among task force members transferred to their communities at home.

4. Seeking assignment of the proposal to a friendly committee--because of the advice of all who had been involved in the legislative process, the task force understood the importance of seeking assignment to a friendly committee. In any legislative body, the committee process is vital to the vetting of ideas, screening out those that do not have enough initial positive impact or that seem too controversial and in need of further informal debate. In short, this is the place to test whether an idea's time has come. In this crucible of creation and destruction, past working relationships, interest in subject matter, and political connections are critical. A proposal of this type might usually fit into a health committee, but the relationships with members of that committee were weaker than with the Joint Agriculture Committee, with which WDA enjoyed a good working relationship. The director of WDA therefore sought and obtained an assignment to agriculture.

5. Building rapport with the committee--two key elements led to legislative success: interest level and comfort level. Both had to be nurtured in committee if success was to be achieved on the floor of the legislature. A small group of volunteers from the committee and the task force met so that the committee could be informed of the content of the proposal and so that the idea could be refined. As concerns or weaknesses were identified, they were addressed in this early part of the political process. This careful work created both lasting support among committee members and a level of comfort for other legislators.

6. Starting in the smaller legislative body--if possible, a proposal of this type should be introduced in the smaller legislative body (usually the senate) so that there are fewer people to convince. Throughout its endeavors, the task force worked with progressively larger numbers of people, discovering objections, finding out what people liked, improving the product, and gradually building support.

7. Staying ahead of the curve--in the fast-paced venue of any legislative body, events can easily and quickly spin wildly out of control. Staying on top of issues, answering questions, pulling aside people with doubts, and giving them a little one-on-one attention is vital to success. Because many government employees face restrictions on their "lobbying" activities, members of industry can play a very important role.

8. Being willing to compromise--someone with influence will always want to change something. As long as proposed changes do not alter the substance of the desired legislation, agreeing to them will foster a great deal of goodwill and comfort.

Conclusions

Although the food safety community has long discussed the need for unified, partnership-based approaches, and although many new directions have been considered, few food program managers seem to believe that sweeping changes are possible. Nevertheless, the daunting challenges of coming to consensus with the many and varied interests that are the stakeholders in food safety issues can be overcome. With the effort described in this article, Wyoming has shown that sweeping change is possible if

* an attractive picture of what might be possible is offered,

* time and effort are devoted to building careful grassroots support, and

* political expertise and advice are sought and followed.

Corresponding Author: Capt. Charles L. Higgins, Public Health Program Regional Consultant, National Park Service/Intermountain Region, 12795 W Alameda Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80228. E-mail: [less than][e-mail][greater than].