Attitudes on Imported Food Regulation in Minnesota’s West African Communities
Valerie Gamble
Agricultural Consultant
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI)
2012 Fellow in Applied Science, Law, and Policy: Fellowship in Food Protection
Abstract
A mixed method study was conducted to explore attitudes and behaviors of West African food business owner-operators in Minnesota regarding the inspection of illegally imported foods. Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulatory data collected from January 2007 until June 2012 documented enforcement action taken against imported West African foods, specifically smoked, uneviscerated fish that is currently illegal in the United States. A focus group conducted in October of 2012 with six West African food business owner-operators highlighted smoked uneviscerated fish as the most desired yet most difficultto obtain African food product in Minnesota. The discussion indicated that the smoked uneviscerated fish is easily obtained elsewhere in the United States despite the fact that it is illegal to import and sell, pointing to unequal enforcement of regulations from state to state. The focus group also indicated that individuals were willingly procuring and commercializing illegal imported foods that pose a public health threat, causing tension between food handlers and regulatory inspectors.
Background
Food is imported from more than 150 countries and territories into the United States. These imported food products constitute 10-15% of the US food supply (Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, 2011). The amount of imported foods is increasing in the United States as a result of increased diversity in the population and overall demand (Brooks, Buzby & Regmi, 2009). During the last ten years in the state of New York, 71% of food recalls were associated with imported food products (Montalbano, 2011).
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) electronically reviews imported food entering 329 ports of entry, targeting approximately 1-2% of items with associated higher risk for physical examination (Elder, 2010). In 2011 the FDA documented 10,439,236 food imports and physically examined 243,400 of those imports (FDA, 2012). The gap between food import volume and number of inspections conducted by the FDA poses a threat to public health (Government Accountability Office, 2009). Indeed, inspection of imported food may be one of the most visible flaws in the United States food safety system.
Fishery and seafood products in particular can be problematic as 80% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported. During 1998 and 2004, fishery and seafood products had the second highest number of import refusals due to adulteration or misbranding, with 11,016 shipments out of 49,448 total shipments refused. Seafood products also had the highest number, 53% of total pathogen adulteration violations recorded, compared to other food categories (Buzby, Unnevehr & Roberts, 2008). The new authorities granted to the FDA under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) address the larger problem of illegal imported food entering the United States (FDA, 2013). However, the sections of FSMA covering imports will take time to implement and the challenges facing regulators today still need to be addressed.
Imported food is in demand by the general population and especially by growing immigrant communities in the United States (Brooks, Buzby & Regmi, 2009). Minnesota has well-established immigrant populations including groups from Asia, Latin America, and more recently, Africa (Owen, 2010). Minnesota is a designated U.S. refugee resettlement area and is currently home to both the largest Somali and Liberian communities in the United States (Fennelly, 2012). African immigrants, approximately 76,335 people, are now the third largest group in Minnesota behind those of Asian and Latin American origins (Migration Policy Institute, 2012).The percentage of ethnic businesses, including food facilities, is increasing in Minnesota with over 31,000 ethnic firms in 2007, a 43% increase from 2002 (Corrie, 2007).
As the African immigrant population in Minnesota increases, anecdotal evidence from food regulatory agency observations suggests an increase in the commercialization of African food products. The majority of African ethnic foods in Minnesota is not imported directly into the state, but is shipped interstate. These products include imported traditional West African food such as smoked fish that is often processed and marketed uneviscerated. There is strong demand in the West African community for this product regardless of the fact that uneviscerated fish is illegal in the United States. Routine inspections of both retail and wholesale West African food business owner-operators indicate that an underground commercial market exists in Minnesota, as shown by the owner-operators obtaining, handling, and distributing illegal and potentially dangerous imported food products including uneviscerated, smoked fish. According to Section 540.650 of the FDA Compliance Policy Guide, smoked, uneviscerated fish is dangerous and is an adulterated food due to the potential for botulism toxin development in the viscera of the fish.
The botulism risk makes the smoked, uneviscerated fish a prime target for regulatory action. A challenge facing Minnesota regulators with this fish and other imported foods is the determination of product source. Many African imports come with minimal records or chain-of-custody paperwork and often products are brought to Minnesota without any identifying information on the shipping boxes or packaging. The current system of downstream control for food regulation in the United States relies on the previous supplier being inspected and regulated to ensure continuous food safety. Without documentation or source information, products are assumed to be suspect and potentially adulterated. Any suspect foods encountered are investigated and subsequently voluntarily discarded, embargoed and sampled, or destroyed on site following condemnation.
Clandestine sale of illegal food products is difficult for Minnesota regulatory agencies to address with traditional inspection resources because of challenges associated with community perception of regulatory action. Minnesota inspectors enter West African food firms and often encounter new products, unlabeled products, and very different food handling practices. While West African food business owner-operators understand the law in Minnesota, they may not understand why certain foods are considered dangerous. Compliance actions such as embargos, condemnations and recalls take more time to complete than regular inspection activities due to additional required documentation, product disposal and repeat visits to facilities. The additional time demand created by these compliance actions potentially limits the number of inspections and routine checks accomplished.
Regulatory actions alone are not preventing the availability of products such as smoked, uneviscerated fish. Community engagement has the potential to encourage self-regulation in the recent African immigrant communities and allow for education of both regulators and African business owners. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has had success with community engagement and education for immigrant populations in the past, as demonstrated by outreach coordinated with the Cornell University Department of Food Science for the Chinese and Russian food business communities in New York City. This effort resulted in an improved awareness of illegal imported foods, the responsibilities of food businesses, and steps businesses could take to protect themselves from liability for possessing illegal imported food products (J. Corby, personal communication, 2012).
Problem Statement
Conventional inspection and enforcement practices with Minnesota’s West African food business owner-operators selling illegal imported foods may not be an optimally effective regulatory approach to public health protection.
Research Questions
1) What is the nature of regulatory action taken in Minnesota on African food products from June 2007 to June 2012?
2) What is the demand for illegal imported food products in Minnesota’s West African community?
3) How can training, education and community engagement of West African food business owner-operators by regulators impact the demand for illegal importation of food products?
Methodology
To explore attitudes and behaviors of West African food business owner-operators in Minnesota regarding illegally imported foods, relevant documents were reviewed, and a focus group was conducted.
Tracking data from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture documenting inspections, surveillance, and sampling were used to answer the first research question regarding the nature of regulatory action taken in Minnesota on African food products from June 2007 to June 2012. These data were used to determine, through a primary analysis, the number of regulatory actions taken on food from unapproved sources, including imported food items. The data were organized using Microsoft Excel by type of action taken: Product Embargo, Condemnation, or Voluntary Removal. Thirteen categories were developed for classifying the reasons for action taken including adulterated, smoked, uneviscerated fish. The voluntary removal data was not included in the final analysis due to the size of the dataset.
A focus group was conducted to answer the second research question regarding the demand for illegal imported food products in Minnesota’s West African community. A single category design focus group with one target audience was conducted with an assistant moderator on October 27, 2012 at Brooklyn Park City Hall with six West African food business owner-operators from Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Data were collected with written notes and a short participant check occurred at the end of the focus group. A debriefing with the assistant moderator was also conducted immediately following the discussion to confirm themes and ideas presented by the participants. The focus group data were analyzed for general content and trends using factors such as the frequency of mentioning each topic, the specificity of the discussion on different topics, emotional expression, and the extensiveness or depth of the discussion (Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Results
Inspection tracking data collected by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture from January 2007 to June of 2012 indicate that the second most common reason for embargoing or condemning food, at 17% of the total number of actions taken, was the presence of adulterated, smoked, uneviscerated fish (Figure 1).
From 2007 to 2012, 93% (64 products) of embargos and condemnations placed on products from unapproved sources involved imported food items considered potentially adulterated because of unknown storage and handling conditions. Of the 64 imports, 78% were different types of adulterated, smoked, uneviscerated fish. Regulatory action was taken on smoked, uneviscerated fish 62 times, with the most common fish being Boni and the least common being Whiskered and Kangbe (Figure 2).
Sixty-three of the 64 imports were from either African food establishments or Asian stores selling African food products, and the amount of product onsite ranged from 1 pound to 1880 pounds.
Emerging from the focus group were four major themes.
1. There is a high demand for smoked, uneviscerated fish despite its illegal status in the United States.
2. West African food business owner-operators in Minnesota identified significant non-uniformity in regulatory practices and enforcement in the United States.
3. West African food business owner-operators hold different beliefs about the safety and handling of smoked, uneviscerated fish.
4. Minnesota’s West African food business owner-operators would be receptive to education and training outreach as part of a solution.
Regarding the first theme, all participants stated that smoked, uneviscerated fish was the product they wanted that was difficult to obtain in Minnesota. Multiple fish types were mentioned during the focus group including Boni, Kangbe and Kuta. With respect to the second theme, the participants strongly believed that Minnesota is enforcing food safety regulations differently from the rest of the country, especially with regard to smoked, uneviscerated fish. Focus group participants expressed frustration multiple times that the fish sold and purchased illegally in Minnesota is easily obtained in stores and wholesale establishments elsewhere in the country. This enforcement in Minnesota was seen as a barrier to the community getting the food that they want and have been eating for many decades. The problem, as one person stated, was not that uneviscerated fish is not getting into the United States; the problem is buying and selling the fish in Minnesota. With regard to the third theme, the participants were not concerned about the safety of the smoked, uneviscerated fish. Rather, they felt that the product was perfectly safe and had been eaten for hundreds of years the same way smoked, uneviscerated fish is prepared today. One participant explained that the fish were boiled for at least fifteen minutes in stews and soups, often for several hours, and then either eaten in the soup or taken out.
Regarding the fourth theme, the participants were interested in the concept of educational outreach but would like regulators to learn more about traditional West African foods. They did not think that training for community members in general would be helpful because the community wants the fish, whether obtained illegally or legally. The comments were very passionate regarding United States food law, and once this sentiment was stated everyone in the room appeared to agree with the idea that regulation was unfair for African food products. They suggested that inequity was due to lack of understanding of the food products, how they are prepared, and where they come from.
Conclusions
The tracking data indicated that sale of imported smoked, uneviscerated fish is a significant regulatory issue in Minnesota. The focus group data indicated that West African food business owner-operators in Minnesota are aware of state and federal regulations governing imported food sources, but the demand for traditional, familiar food products encourages commercialization of illegal imports. The data also indicated that there is a perception of non-uniformity between states in regulation of illegal imported foods. In addition, traditional embargo and condemnation-oriented regulatory actions do not appear to limit the sales of imported foods from unapproved sources or illegal foods such as smoked, uneviscerated fish.
Recommendations
The prevalence of smoked, uneviscerated fish in Minnesota, and the United States in general, suggests a need for action. The implementation of the import rule developed following the passage of FSMA will address illegal imports entering the United States. However, even with new regulation, the FDA will not be able to physically inspect all imported foods. The import and inspection gap, combined with the desire for traditional foods, will allow some illegal imported foods into the U.S. and Minnesota, continuing the current problem of the commercialization of illegal food products. The FDA and state and local agencies must identify intervention strategies to effectively halt the underground traffic of uneviscerated fish using the proposed import rules and subsequent regulation.
The perceived lack of uniformity in addressing imported food products among state regulatory agencies should also be investigated and addressed. Greater collaboration and communication between states (domestic inspections) and FDA (import operations) could potentially remove illegal imported food from the market. More specifically with regard to the smoked, uneviscerated fish, providing training and factsheets on the FDA Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.650 could be helpful in increasing national awareness. Local and national community engagement through joint development of educational programs, training and outreach activities utilizing existing organizations may be an effective way to address the regulatory challenges because the local organizations already have the trust of and connections with the community (Egerstrom, 2011).
Without the engagement of the West African community, conventional regulatory activity will continue to be an ineffective way of controlling the sale and consumption of illegal imported smoked, uneviscerated fish. Additional focus groups in Minnesota and at the national level should be conducted to build on the findings presented here and continue building a base for community engagement. Community engagement and education can be a major component of intervention and future regulation strategies to decrease or eliminate the underground market for illegal imported food products including smoked, uneviscerated fish.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI) for the wonderful opportunity to participate in this fellowship, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Dairy and Food Inspection Division for time and support to complete the program. I greatly value the guidance, assistance and input from my mentor, Mr. Joseph Corby, and also the clear direction and advice from Dr. Preston Hicks. I would like to thank the IFPTI subject matter experts for rewarding and enlightening training and the IFPTI staff for such a great overall experience. I would like to express my gratitude especially to my supervisor Lorna Girard and supervisor Katherine Simon with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and to Jason Newby with the city of Brooklyn Park. I would also like to say thank you to the participants of the focus group conducted as part of this research. I want to give a huge thank you to the fantastic members of the 2012 Fellows cohort for making this an experience to savor and remember, and finally want to thank my husband, Tim, and my family for their support and assistance throughout the fellowship year.
References
Brooks, N., Buzby, J.C., & Regmi, A. (2009). Globalization and Evolving Preferences Drive U.S. Food Import Growth. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 40(1), 39.
Buzby, J. C., Unnevehr, L. J., & Roberts, D. (2008) Food Safety and Imports: An Analysis of FDA-Food Related Import Refusal Reports. Economic Information Bulletin Number 39.
Corrie, B. (2007). Latest Data on Minority Firms in Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.ethniccapital.com/uploads/1/2/2/9/12297431/latest_data_on_minority_firms_in_minnesota_2007.pdf.
Egerstrom, L. (2011). Made in Minnesota 2011: Fertile Ground for Minority Opportunity. Minnesota 2020. Retrieved from http://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/
article/Fertile_Ground_web.pdf.
Elder, D. (2010). Ensuring the Safety of Imported Products. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM229925.pdf.
Fennelly, K. (2012). Minnesota Summary Report. Midwest Coalition on Immigration and the Region’s Future: Data compiled by Katherine Fennelly and Graduate Students at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://immigrationtaskforce.hhh.umn.edu/Minnesota.
Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus Groups 3rd Edition: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Migration Policy Institute. (2012). Minnesota: Social and Demographic Characteristics. MPI Data Hub: Migration Facts, Stats, and Maps. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/acscensus.cfm#.
Montalbano, A. (2011). Targeted Enforcement Surveillance of Imported Foods in New York State. Journal of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, 71(1), 62-69.
Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy (2011). U.S. Food and Drug Administration Special Report, Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobal
RegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/GlobalProductPathway/default.htm.
Owen, G. (2010). A New Age of Immigrants: Making Immigration Work for Minnesota. Summary of Key Findings, August 2010. The Minneapolis Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.mncompass.org/_pdfs/
Immigration_Report_Summary_web.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Annual Report to Congress on Food Facilities, Food Imports, and FDA Foreign Offices Provisions of the FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/
FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm315486.htm.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Making Certain Imported Foods Meet U.S. Standards under FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm257980.htm
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Agencies Need to Address Gaps in Enforcement and Collaboration to Enhance Safety of Imported Food. GAO-09-873.