No dissenting views available, but the bill had few cosponsors.

In November 1997, Representative Vic Fazio and Senator Richard Durbin introduced identical bills, the Safe Food Act of 1997. On November 4, 1997, H.R. 2801 was referred to the Committees on Agriculture and Commerce and, on November 14, 1997, to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. S. 1465 was introduced on November 9, 1997, and referred to the Committee on Government Affairs. So far, there have been no hearings.

This act, if passed, would consolidate all federal food safety, labeling, and inspection programs into a new independent agency known as the Food Safety Administration (FSA). The new agency would be funded by transferring appropriated funds that are currently designated for food safety functions of four agencies (FDA, USDA, EPA, and National Marine Fisheries Service). According to supporters, the purpose of the new agency would be to replace an outdated, fragmented, and overlapping food safety system. Supporters also say that a single food safety agency could identify the most serious public health risks from specific food-borne pathogens. In addition, resources could be used to develop better testing methods, conduct risk assessments, and identify the most cost-effective interventions without regard to the type of food or bureaucratic "turf."

Critics believe that the time is not right for major reform of the current food safety system. Some resist the formation of a new agency because of fear that a whole new FSA would cause dislocation and upheaval. It could also mean that the current parent agencies would have to relinquish their budget authority and control over functions related to food safety. Most opponents to an independent agency advocate allowing the Clinton Administration's 1997 food safety initiatives to take effect. They await the Administration's reports to Congress as to whether these new policies reduce incidences of food-borne illnesses. Other critics claim that the proposed legislation does not define a new food safety mandate to be carried out, but only reorganizes food safety functions by moving the current functions to the new FSA. They argue that a new FSA could be hindered in setting priorities for