Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should establish and implement formal policies to use quality information (e.g., linking decisions to mission-related goals) in the three centers' planning for their personal property needs, consistent with key characteristics integral to asset management leading practices. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should establish and implement formal policies to use quality information (e.g., tracking condition, and maintenance and repair costs) in the three centers' operations and maintenance of personal property, consistent with key characteristics integral to asset management leading practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should establish and implement formal policies to use quality information (e.g., measuring and documenting performance) in the three centers' reviews of personal property performance, consistent with key characteristics integral to asset management leading practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should take steps to ensure that the condition of all White Oak facilities that FDA occupies are assessed, including limited access areas and tenant improvements that are above the standard services and facilities that GSA provides. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture should direct the Agricultural Marketing Service to conduct an evaluation of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program after the third round of the program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of CBP should better communicate to stakeholders the types of information stakeholders could collect and submit to CBP to help the agency initiate and investigate forced labor cases related to seafood and, as appropriate, other goods. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration in the agencies' interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA and USDA partially concurred with this recommendation. FDA stated that it concurred with the intent of incorporating the seven leading practices into the interagency agreement, and both agencies said that they are open to incorporating the practices into their development of the structure for joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. However, the agencies stated that they did not agree to revise the agreement at this time. FDA and USDA stated that the agreement is a general framework and that incorporating the leading practices would constitute an inappropriate level of detail. Instead, the agencies stated that they believe it would be most valuable to incorporate the leading practices into a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure they plan to issue. We appreciate the agencies' willingness to incorporate the leading practices for effective collaboration into their efforts. The March 2019 interagency agreement states that the agencies have the ability to modify it as needed and will review the agreement every 3 years to determine whether they should modify or terminate it. Therefore, the agencies are due to revisit the agreement in March 2022, if not sooner. Regarding the agencies' concern that incorporating the leading practices in the interagency agreement would add an inappropriate level of detail, we note that, as we state in our report, the existing agreement already partially incorporates each of the seven leading practices. We continue to believe that FDA and USDA should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration into their interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. Developing a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure in accordance with the existing interagency agreement that incorporates those leading practices would meet the intent of our recommendation to improve the effectiveness of the agencies' collaboration.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration in the agencies' interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: FDA and USDA partially concurred with this recommendation. FDA stated that it concurred with the intent of incorporating the seven leading practices into the interagency agreement, and both agencies said that they are open to incorporating the practices into their development of the structure for joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. However, the agencies stated that they did not agree to revise the agreement at this time. FDA and USDA stated that the agreement is a general framework and that incorporating the leading practices would constitute an inappropriate level of detail. Instead, the agencies stated that they believe it would be most valuable to incorporate the leading practices into a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure they plan to issue. We appreciate the agencies' willingness to incorporate the leading practices for effective collaboration into their efforts. The March 2019 interagency agreement states that the agencies have the ability to modify it as needed and will review the agreement every 3 years to determine whether they should modify or terminate it. Therefore, the agencies are due to revisit the agreement in March 2022, if not sooner. Regarding the agencies' concern that incorporating the leading practices in the interagency agreement would add an inappropriate level of detail, we note that, as we state in our report, the existing agreement already partially incorporates each of the seven leading practices. We continue to believe that FDA and USDA should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration into their interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. Developing a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure in accordance with the existing interagency agreement that incorporates those leading practices would meet the intent of our recommendation to improve the effectiveness of the agencies' collaboration.

Recommendation: As the three cell-cultured meat working groups move forward, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration, such as identifying specific outcomes and a way to monitor and evaluate progress toward outcomes. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, FDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: As the three cell-cultured meat working groups move forward, the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration, such as identifying specific outcomes and a way to monitor and evaluate progress toward outcomes. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, USDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should clearly document in their interagency agreement, or other publicly available document, which agency will oversee cell-cultured seafood other than catfish. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, FDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should clearly document in their interagency agreement, or other publicly available document, which agency will oversee cell-cultured seafood other than catfish. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, USDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct Departmental Administration to work with the mission areas to develop department-level outcome-oriented performance goals and related measures for the business centers, and use them to assess the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, USDA officials agreed with our recommendation and stated that the department is evaluating options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring reviews by the department's Deputy Secretary who is identified as the Chief Operating Officer.

Recommendation: The Administrator of ACL should work with other relevant HHS officials to document the department's plan to focus on the specific nutritional needs of older adults in the 2025-2030 update of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which would include, in part, plans to identify existing information gaps on older adults' specific nutritional needs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Community Living
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation, stating that ACL plans to work with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and other relevant HHS officials and agencies to document HHS's plans to emphasize the specific and varying nutritional needs of older adults in the 2025-2030 update. HHS also stated that ACL plans to acquire the services of a registered dietician with specialized expertise in older adults' nutritional needs. We will consider closing this recommendation when these efforts are completed.

Recommendation: The Administrator of ACL should direct regional offices to take steps to ensure states are monitoring providers to ensure meal consistency with federal nutrition requirements for meals served in the congregate and home-delivered meal programs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Community Living
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation. HHS stated that ACL's program and evaluation offices will collaborate on the development of plans to ensure state compliance with federal requirements.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should take steps to improve its oversight of CACFP meals provided in adult day care centers. For example, FNS could amend its approach for determining federal onsite reviews of CACFP meal providers to more consistently include adult day care centers. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service told us that, in an effort to improve oversight of the CACFP meals provided in adult day care centers, it will place a special interest on lessons learned from onsite local reviews that are conducted by states where the adult portion of the CACFP is administered separately by the state department of aging and thus, adult day care institutions are always selected for local onsite reviews as part of their management evaluation. Further, Food and Nutrition Service told us it will commit to sharing this information with other state agencies that administer the CACFP. Food and Nutrition Service estimates completing this action by the end of calendar year 2020. We will review the status of this recommendation upon receipt of Food and Nutrition Service updates at the end of 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of ACL should centralize information on promising approaches for making meal accommodations to meet the nutritional needs of older adult participants in the congregate and home-delivered meal programs, for example in one location on its National Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging website, to assist providers' efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Community Living
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that ACL will award a contract in fiscal year 2020 for a new National Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging to, among other things, centralize information on promising approaches so nutrition services providers can access it easily. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is complete.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should take steps to better disseminate existing information that could help state and local entities involved in providing CACFP meals meet the varying nutritional needs of older adult participants, as well as continue to identify additional promising practices or other information on meal accommodations to share with CACFP entities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service told us that it will take several actions over the next 12 months to address our recommendation. Food and Nutrition Service actions will include holding listening sessions specifically focused on the adult day care side of the program at two national CACFP conferences this year to understand the specific information providers are looking for the address the needs of older adults and identify promising strategies for accommodating those needs; review existing guidance for training opportunities and areas that could benefit from further clarifications; and updating the Adult Day Care Handbook to include promising practice examples to address specific information and concerns gathered from the listening sessions, GAO's report findings, and further clarifications from existing guidance. Food and Nutrition Service also told us it will use multiple channels to ensure the handbook is widely disseminated to state agencies and adult day care program operators. We will review the status of this recommendation upon receipt of additional updates from Food and Nutrition Service regarding the aforementioned actions to be taken over the next 12 months.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should establish a process to monitor whether the agency is meeting its audit goals and expectations for sampling and inspections to support its removal decisions for seafood import alerts. This could be done through regularly analyzing data that FDA collects, such as those in CMS, FACTS, and OASIS. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA agreed with our recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency is working to review and modify appropriate sections of its Regulatory Procedures Manual to better reflect the importance of foreign suppliers' corrective actions when making decisions to remove a firm from an import alert and identify higher-risk problem areas where more robust information may be needed. In addition, a checklist for import alerts and associated Compliance Management System (database) functionality are under development. According to FDA, the agency is also working to refine internal communications to better assure that firms which have recently been removed from an import alert are also considered for an inspection. Additionally, in November 2019, FDA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on accreditation of laboratories that conduct food testing to support removal from import alert and other purposes. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should establish a time frame for developing performance goals and measures for its imported food safety program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency has published some performance metrics and plans to develop additional performance measures and outcome indicators for imported food safety, to support FDA's Strategy for the Safety of Imported Food (Strategy). In addition, after publishing these initial metrics for the Strategy, the agency will develop additional performance metrics. FDA stated that the COVID-19 situation is quite fluid and the agency is unable to project timelines for developing additional performance measures at this time. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should, as the agency develops goals and measures for its imported food safety program, develop performance goals and corresponding performance measures specific to seafood import alerts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency remains committed to developing additional performance goals and measures for its imported food safety program. FDA is still reviewing the Import Alert Effectiveness Program and will consider metrics, as appropriate, based on the outcome of that review. FDA stated that the COVID-19 situation is quite fluid and the agency is unable to project timelines for developing additional performance measures at this time. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should work with the Commissioner of FDA to develop a mechanism to facilitate coordination with relevant nonfederal stakeholders, including state, local, and tribal governments, on actions related to date labels as part of their efforts to reduce food loss and waste. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA agreed with our recommendation and is planning actions to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should work with the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a mechanism to facilitate coordination with relevant nonfederal stakeholders, including state, local, and tribal governments, on actions related to date labels as part of their efforts to reduce food loss and waste. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA agreed with our recommendation and is taking actions to implement the recommendation. For example, as of August 2020, FDA said it is meeting regularly with USDA and EPA to coordinate activities including to clarify and communicate information on food date labels. FDA also named a representative to the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) Food Recovery Committee. FDA is encouraging the Committee to explore how date labels on packaged foods can create a barrier to food donation and to track state legislative activities related to date labeling of food. We will update the status of this recommendation as FDA makes more progress.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should improve how FNS gathers information on the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed interventions, in order to ensure that these interventions are meeting program goals. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretaries for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and for Research, Education, and Economics to develop a formal mechanism, such as a designated individual or group of individuals, for providing cross-department leadership for USDA's nutrition education efforts and facilitating cross-program information sharing. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretaries for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and for Research, Education, and Economics to identify and implement mechanisms to fully leverage the department's nutrition expertise for its nutrition education efforts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

Recommendation: The Administrator of EPA should work with the Commissioner of FDA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3)clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort.(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with this recommendation. As of June 2020, EPA indicated that its proposed completion date is October 2020. EPA published joint and individual agency accomplishments in each of the six priority areas listed as contributing efforts on EPA's webpage (https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/winning-reducing-food-waste-federal-interagency-strategy). In addition, EPA indicated that it is coordinating with government and other stakeholders through: (1) monthly high-level check-in calls for senior USDA and FDA officials, in which the meeting chair rotates among agencies; (2) twice a month (or as needed) staff work group meetings, led by the recently appointed USDA food loss and waste liaison, to explore potential activities aligned with the six priority areas in the interagency strategy to reduce food loss and waste; and (3) participation in quarterly meetings with relevant stakeholders, such as ReFED, the Food Waste Reduction Alliance (FWRA), and Further with Food, to coordinate efforts and learn of opportunities to collaborate on reducing food loss and waste. We will continue to follow up with the agency. When we confirm what additional actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should work with the Administrator of EPA and Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3)clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with this recommendation. As of December 2019, we are following up with the agency. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should work with Administrator of EPA and Commissioner of FDA to incorporate leading collaboration practices as they implement their interagency FLW reduction strategic plan, to include (1) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (2) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (3)clearly defining short- and long-term outcomes; (4) identifying how leadership commitment will be sustained; and (5) ensuring that the relevant stakeholders have been included in the collaborative effort. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with this recommendation. As of December 2019, we are following up with the agency. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service should establish a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments for the school meals programs that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 12, 2019, USDA stated that it will undertake, over the course of the next year, a re-evaluation of its existing research and oversight activity to measure and assess fraud risk, its efforts to manage that risk, and its work to minimize the occurrence and impact of fraudulent activity on the school meal programs. USDA also stated that it will look to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework as a model for this effort. USDA expects this effort to include some new activity, such as a deeper examination of the underlying causes of program error in the agency's periodic studies of improper payments. USDA also views this as an opportunity to clarify and highlight how the agency's existing approach to risk management currently addresses fraud risk. USDA agrees that it is appropriate to review and refine its existing controls on a regular basis and recognizes that a more formalized assessment of fraud risk is likely to uncover gaps in existing activity that point to opportunities for further agency action. USDA commits to the development of a response to the effort that is appropriate to the scale of the identified risk and the broader mission of the school meal programs. In September 2020, USDA stated that it has been reviewing agency research and administrative data, as well as conducting new analysis. USDA is concluding work on its risk assessment and plans to circulate it within the agency for review soon. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in this area.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service should follow the agency's standard operating procedures (SOP) to prioritize corrective actions for FMD preparedness. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is evaluating the agency's response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service should follow the agency's SOP to monitor progress and track completion of corrective actions for FMD preparedness. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is evaluating the agency's response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should make information on their website regarding student SNAP eligibility requirements easier to understand and more accessible, as a resource for colleges and state SNAP agencies. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS partially concurred with this recommendation and in September 2019, the agency stated that it will take actions to address the recommendation by February 2020. First, FNS said it would review the information regarding student SNAP eligibility on its website and, where possible, revise this information to reduce legal and technical language. FNS also stated it will evaluate the placement of student SNAP eligibility content on its website and assess alternatives to increase accessibility of this information for colleges and state SNAP agencies. We continue to believe that changes to FNS's existing information are needed to improve the clarity and accessibility of information about SNAP student eligibility requirements on FNS's website. Once we receive additional information about improvements to FNS's website, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should coordinate with its regional offices to collect and review information about existing SNAP flexibilities and examples of approaches state SNAP agencies are taking to assist eligible college students to access SNAP benefits, and share such information with state SNAP agencies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS partially concurred with this recommendation and, in September 2019, stated that it is currently evaluating strategies to address this recommendation utilizing existing resources. Specifically, FNS stated that by August 2020, it will assess suitable mechanisms (e.g., policy memos, webinars, conferences) for information sharing with state SNAP agencies and disseminate that material as resources allow. We continue to believe that FNS needs to work with its regional offices to identify and share additional information about state approaches to assist eligible college students with access to SNAP benefits. Once we receive additional information about FNS's information sharing activities, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should amend its analysis of selected data centers to address key elements of a cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis as defined by OMB Circular A-94 and relevant agency guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.

Recommendation: When amending its analysis of the selected data centers, the Secretary of Agriculture should report on the assessment of each facility's protective measures, as outlined by the Interagency Security Committee guidance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.

Recommendation: When amending its analysis of the selected data centers, the Secretary of Agriculture should report on an analysis of the information security controls for each data center, in order to evaluate the data center's information security capabilities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.

Recommendation: When amending its analysis of the selected data centers, the Secretary of Agriculture should report on each data center's demonstrated history of restoring continuity of operation functions in the event of a service disruption. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should present the uncertainty around its retailer trafficking estimates in future reports by, for example, including the full range of the estimates in the report body and executive summary. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation, and stated that it will present the uncertainty around the retailer trafficking estimates in the executive summary and main body of all future trafficking reports, instead of presenting the information in appendices, as it did in past reports. In August 2020, FNS stated that it has made this change to the next trafficking report, which is in clearance at USDA. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS issues its this report.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should continue efforts to improve the agency's retailer trafficking estimates by evaluating (1) whether the factors used to identify stores for possible investigation could help address the bias in its sample, and (2) the accuracy of its assumption of the percentage of SNAP benefits that are trafficked by different types of stores. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. FNS stated that it will evaluate whether incorporating additional factors, such as the Watch List score used to identify stores for possible investigation, could improve its estimation methodology. FNS also stated that it will work with the USDA OIG to better understand the methodology the OIG uses to estimate the share of benefits that are trafficked by a retailer who is prosecuted for trafficking, and determine whether it is feasible to apply a similar methodology to the transaction data maintained by FNS in order to improve the accuracy of its assumptions about the percentage of SNAP benefits that are trafficked. In August 2020, FNS noted that it will evaluate the feasibility of this revised methodology for the trafficking estimates covering years 2018 through 2020. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS provides information on the results of this evaluation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should assess the benefits and costs of reauthorizing a sample of high-risk stores more frequently than other stores, use the assessment to determine the appropriate scope and time frames for reauthorizing high-risk stores moving forward, and document this decision in policy and on its website. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS stated that it included a sample of 471 high-risk stores that had not yet reached their 5-year reauthorization cycle in its fiscal year 2020 reauthorization pool. Once fiscal year 2020 reauthorizations are complete, FNS will analyze the outcomes of these reauthorizations to determine the benefits and costs of reauthorizing some high-risk stores more frequently. At that point, FNS will determine the appropriate scope and time frames for reauthorizing high-risk stores moving forward. GAO will consider this recommendation implemented when FNS completes this work.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should move forward with plans to increase penalties for retailer trafficking. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS reported that it has developed a proposed rule to accomplish this change. The agency expects the proposed rule to be published in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should establish performance measures for its trafficking prevention activities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FNS reported that the agency has assessed existing data to develop strategies for trafficking prevention, and is taking a two-pronged approach. First, the agency stated that it has updated training materials and guidance to make them more accessible for staff. Second, the agency stated that it is continuing to assess store applications and reauthorizations for business integrity, including prior fraud and other criminal offenses by store owners or managers, as described in regulations and policy. However, FNS did not indicate whether the agency currently has plans to establish performance measures for its trafficking prevention activities.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should identify and disseminate strategies to states and service providers for increasing the participation of SNAP recipients referred to the SNAP E&T program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation and indicated they are taking steps towards closing it. Specifically, FNS officials said they plan to take the following actions to disseminate strategies on increasing participation among SNAP recipients referred to the SNAP E&T program: 1) update the SNAP E&T Best Practices Study to include strategies on increasing participation by December 2021; 2) publish results from Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Requirements and Work Effort Under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that include information regarding which outreach, referral, and enrollment processes are most effective by 2021; and 3) provide technical assistance through SNAP to Skills with new attention on increasing SNAP E&T participation and engagement among eligible SNAP participants. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to disseminate strategies through these mechanisms with a particular focus on ensuring these strategies reach both state officials and service providers.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should take additional steps to address data reliability issues in the state-reported data on SNAP E&T participant characteristics and outcomes, including steps to address imprecise instructions on data collection forms and staff confusion at the state level. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. They noted that they have been providing continued technical assistance to states to improve data quality and in October 2018 made updates to the SNAP E&T data report. FNS plans or has additional changes pending to the SNAP E&T data report and SNAP Quality Control guidance that it plans to use to collect improved SNAP E&T data in fiscal year 2021. In addition, FNS plans to leverage results from data and technical assistance grants upon their completion in September 2020 to disseminate best practices to help states improve outcome reporting data. We are encouraged by FNS's efforts in these areas and will evaluate the results of these actions as we continue to monitor the agency's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should determine and communicate to states how the agency will use newly reported outcome and participant characteristics data to assess the effectiveness of state SNAP E&T programs. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation. FNS officials noted that with the submission of January 2019 outcome reporting measures, the agency has a complete year of data which FNS will use to establish a baseline for each State's SNAP E&T program. However, FNS has not yet articulated how the data will be used to assess effectiveness of the programs, or provided examples of how FNS has used the data to provide feedback on the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to communicate to the states how the outcome data can be used to assess program effectiveness.

Recommendation: Building on ongoing efforts, the Administrator of FNS should develop and implement additional methods to widely distribute information to state agencies on an ongoing basis about successful efforts to adopt data analytics and strategies to leverage existing data, technology, and staff resources to enhance data analytics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: FNS agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that it has been moving in the general direction of this recommendation and would build on current efforts to address it but noted that state readiness and technical capabilities are limiting factors in the adoption of data analytics.

Recommendation: The Chief of the Forest Service should determine whether new regulations governing timber export and substitution are appropriate. If the agency determines new regulations are appropriate, it should issue them in accordance with the 1997 act, in consultation with BLM. Otherwise, the agency should seek legislative relief from the act's requirement. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open

Comments: In its May 15, 2020 correspondence, the Forest Service stated that it is putting together a Corrective Action Plan for addressing the recommendation. It expects leadership review of the plan to be completed in June 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of the BLM should determine whether new regulations governing timber export and substitution are appropriate. If the agency determines new regulations are appropriate, it should issue them in accordance with the 1997 act, in consultation with the Forest Service. Otherwise, the agency should seek legislative relief from the act's requirement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open

Comments: In its April 9, 2020 correspondence, BLM stated that a proposed rule continues to be reviewed by Departmental officials. BLM identified December 31, 2020 as a new target date for completing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief of the Forest Service should review agency policies for continued relevance and effectiveness in addressing the risk of illegal timber export and substitution, and based on that review--and in accordance with applicable regulations--should issue new policies as necessary. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open

Comments: In its May 15, 2020 correspondence, the Forest Service stated that it is putting together a Corrective Action Plan for addressing the recommendation. It expects leadership review of the plan to be completed in June 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of the BLM should review agency policies for continued relevance and effectiveness in addressing the risk of illegal timber export and substitution, and based on that review--and in accordance with applicable regulations--should issue new policies as necessary. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open

Comments: In its April 9, 2020 correspondence, BLM stated that any action to address this recommendation is contingent upon the completion of Recommendation #2. Once BLM's response to that recommendation is completed, the agency will address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of APHIS should develop a timeline for (1) defining birds that are not bred for research and that are covered by the Animal Welfare Act, and (2) requiring that research facilities report to APHIS their use of birds covered by the act. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: According to APHIS officials, the agency developed a timeline and a work plan for an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) to define "bred for use in research" as it applies to birds (as well as to rats and mice) under the Animal Welfare Act and submitted it to USDA officials on July 18, 2019. However, as of October 2019, USDA had not established a date to publish the ANPRM and had instead placed it on the department's long-term regulatory agenda. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Administrator of APHIS should instruct federal agencies to report their use of animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act in federal facilities located outside of the United States. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: USDA disagreed with this recommendation for several reasons. For example, USDA stated that the absence of an exclusion to the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act or its regulations for federal research located outside of the United States does not create a requirement to collect information about such facilities' use of animals. In October 2019, APHIS officials said the agency continues to disagree with the recommendation. However, we have no reason to believe that such facilities should be excluded under the Act, and we continue to believe that the Administrator of APHIS should instruct federal agencies to report their use of animals in activities covered by the Animal Welfare Act in federal facilities located outside of the United States. We will continue to monitor any actions taken by APHIS to address this recommendation and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: In developing the definition of field studies, the Administrator of APHIS should provide research facilities with clear criteria for identifying field studies that are covered by the Animal Welfare Act's regulations and that facilities should report to APHIS as well as field studies that facilities should not report. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our draft report, USDA stated that APHIS agreed to issue a guidance document by December 31, 2018. According to APHIS officials, the agency prepared a draft guidance document entitled "Research Involving Free-Living Wild Species" for departmental review in April 2019. As of October 2019, APHIS was in the process of reviewing comments from the department. We will continue to monitor APHIS and USDA's actions to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should improve its estimate of children's participation in the SFSP by focusing on addressing, at a minimum, data reliability issues caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-day letter and a subsequent response to report recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it anticipates completing an evaluation of how they calculate SFSP participation by summer 2020. GAO will continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation, including the status of its evaluation and steps taken to improve the agency's estimate of children participating in SFSP. GAO will consider this recommendation closed when FNS provides documentation that it has addressed, at a minimum, data reliability issues in the participation estimate caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should communicate to all SFSP stakeholders the circumstances it considers in approving requests for flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence, taking into account the feasibility of accessing data needed for approval, to ensure safe delivery of meals to children. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In late May 2018, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provided guidance to states regarding changes in policies related to SFSP waivers and demonstration projects and held a webinar to clarify the changes. In March 2019, FNS reported that this guidance and the webinar provided information about participation in the demonstration for exceptional circumstances, which is the means through which FNS had granted states and program providers flexibility for children to consume SFSP meals off-site in areas that had experienced crime and violence. However, the guidance documents do not directly acknowledge that FNS includes areas with crime and violence as exceptional circumstances for purposes of the demonstration, and neither the guidance nor the webinar provided new information about the circumstances FNS considers when granting the flexibility for such areas. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation and consider it closed when the agency communicates the circumstances it considers in approving such requests for flexibility with response to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should evaluate and annually report to Congress, as required by statute, on its use of waivers and demonstration projects to grant states and sponsors flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas experiencing crime or violence, to improve its understanding of the use and impact of granting these flexibilities on meeting program goals. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported that it had drafted the report to Congress to meet its statutory requirement summarizing the use of waivers and demonstration projects. FNS also indicated that the report was being reviewed internally, and planned to submit the final report to Congress following that review. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when FNS submits the final report to Congress. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should disseminate information about existing flexibilities available to state agencies to streamline administrative requirements for sponsors participating in the SFSP and other child nutrition programs to help lessen the administrative burden. For example, FNS could re-distribute existing guidance to state agencies that explains available flexibilities and encourage information sharing. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-letter and a subsequent response to recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it plans to address streamlining flexibilities that impact the SFSP and other child nutrition programs in a future regulatory action. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS's progress with this rule-making and any other actions taken to address this recommendation. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the AMS administrator to ensure that P&SP routinely conducts in-depth analysis of the transaction data that it collects. Such analysis could include but not be limited to examining competition levels in different areas of the country. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA agreed that routine in-depth analysis of packer transaction data would enhance USDA's monitoring of the fed cattle market to ensure against discriminatory or anticompetitive practices. In April 2020, USDA officials said the agency has made progress to complete the in-depth analysis and regular monitoring of the transaction data it collects. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) should document the agency's process for deciding which products to consider for new pathogen standards, including the basis on which such decisions should be made. (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, FSIS is drafting a document that will outline the agency's process for deciding which products to consider for new pathogen standards, including the basis on which such decisions should be made. FSIS estimates the document will be finalized in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. As of October 2020, FSIS has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should set time frames for determining what pathogen standards or additional policies are needed to address pathogens in beef carcasses, ground beef, pork cuts, and ground pork. (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, FSIS proposed new pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella in raw ground beef and beef trimmings. FSIS told us the agency is developing performance standards for some pork products and plans to issue draft standards sometime in fiscal year 2020 but as of October 2020 has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should include available information on the effectiveness of on-farm practices to reduce the level of pathogens as it finalizes its guidelines for controlling Salmonella in hogs. (Recommendation 3).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, FSIS is revising its draft guidelines for controlling Salmonella in hogs. The agency plans to include in the guidelines available scientific information on the effectiveness of on-farm practices to reduce Salmonella. FSIS estimates it will complete its revision of the guidelines in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 but as of October 2020 has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should develop a timeline for updating the risk assessment on arsenic in rice. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, FDA stated that it will update the risk assessment when more scientific evidence becomes available. In the meantime, FDA noted that it will continue to monitor research in this area, including ongoing work by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, which is currently reviewing EPA's work on inorganic arsenic, specifically on EPA's IRIS Toxicological Assessments of Inorganic Arsenic. GAO will assess whether FDA has taken action responsive to the recommendation when additional information becomes available.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should ensure that the FVM Program develops performance measures with associated targets and time frames for all eight of FDA's food safety- and nutrition-related objectives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, FDA had not fully implemented our recommendation, although the agency reported taking several steps. For example, FDA stated that implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) based preventive controls standards is a top priority for the agency and a key component of the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan, and for this reason, FSMA-related performance metrics have been prioritized. In addition, FDA reported that in September 2019, the agency published an online Food Safety Dashboard, whose purpose is to measure the progress of each of the FSMA rules, and FDA provides regular updates to the dashboard to promote transparency to the public. FDA also stated that as of June 2020, the dashboard contains measures related to Preventive Controls and Current Good Manufacturing Practice Rules and Imported Food Safety Program, and it includes data for human and animal food and, in some cases, data starting in FY 2017. FDA added that since the FSMA rules have staggered compliance dates, the measures associated with the rules are developed in phases, and over time, the Food Safety Dashboard will be populated with additional data to show more FSMA-related outcomes. However, the recommendation is not fully implemented since our recommendation included the related objectives within the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan. In August 2020, FDA told us that given the agency's 2018 reorganization, FDA has aligned the performance measures and dashboard with the FSMA rules, and the current alignment covers most of the food safety objectives within the strategic plan. FDA also reported that it is reviewing the strategic plan to ensure alignment with FDA's current priorities and structure, including the recently released New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint. We will follow up with FDA and provide an update in FY 2021.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should take additional steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive concerns during OSHA inspections of meat and poultry plants; for example, by considering additional off-site interviews or exploring other options to obtain information anonymously. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA stated that it agrees that workers should be able to report injuries, illnesses, and hazards free of intimidation. OSHA noted that its Field Operations Manual prescribes procedures for facilitating the free and open exchange of information, such as conducting onsite worker interviews without management present. OSHA further stated that when workers indicate interest in offsite interviews, the agency will conduct those interviews as prescribed by the Field Operations Manual. We note in our report that because inspectors inform plant management which workers they want to speak with, supervisors know the identity of workers interviewed onsite. Workers and worker advocates we spoke with expressed concerns about this. OSHA told us that inspectors interview meat and poultry workers offsite infrequently, since these interviews can be challenging and take additional time, and OSHA also may be challenged to find an acceptable venue when the employee is available. In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA had signed an alliance with several meat and poultry-related industry associations and that they expect this alliance to help improve overall safety and health for the industry's workers. We continue to believe that there are additional steps OSHA can take to better encourage workers to disclose sensitive concerns, and we look forward to learning how OSHA will draw upon this alliance to help take these steps.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should gather more information, such as by asking workers during meat and poultry plant inspections, to determine the extent to which bathroom access is a problem and how to address any identified issues. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA stated that meat and poultry workers should have bathroom access as prescribed by the agency's regulations. They noted that if it is observed that processes indicate lack of bathroom access, or if a worker indicates there is an issue, the agency will investigate. Our report identified a mismatch between the concerns we heard from workers about lack of bathroom access and the problems reported by OSHA. We also reported that workers may not volunteer information about lack of bathroom access unless specifically asked. OSHA may choose to address this issue without routinely asking workers about bathroom access, such as by selectively querying workers based on criteria determined by the agency. In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA had signed a national alliance with several meat and poultry-related industry associations, and that bathroom access is one of the topics that will be addressed within this alliance, with a goal of developing educational materials. We note that this is a positive step forward, and we continue to stand by our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should update its guidance for employers on how to manage their health units to address the challenges of managing these units. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA continues work on updating its guidance for employers on how to manage their health units to address the challenges of managing these units, and that OSHA anticipates initiating clearance of the draft updated guidance in fall 2020. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is complete.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should work with FSIS to assess the implementation of the MOU and make any needed changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set specific timeframes for periodic evaluations of the MOU. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February 2020, OSHA reported that OSHA and FSIS drafted an updated MOU, which both parties are reviewing. The two agencies met in Summer 2019 to discuss workplace safety, collaboration between the two agencies, and the implementation of the MOU. During a series of working meetings, they discussed each aspect of the MOU, including training and coordination activities. FSIS and OSHA will continue to meet routinely and review the MOU to determine whether adjustments are needed, as appropriate. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is complete.

Recommendation: The FSIS Administrator should work with OSHA to assess the implementation of the MOU and make any needed changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set specific timeframes for periodic evaluations of the MOU. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: FSIS stated that it already has directives in place to recognize and report hazards affecting FSIS employees, and acknowledged that the MOU was designed to additionally have FSIS employees report hazards affecting plant employees due to the regular presence of its inspectors in plants. FSIS noted that in collaborating with OSHA, FSIS will need to ensure its primary mission is not compromised by undertaking activities that take time and resources away from its food safety inspection responsibilities. In January 2019, OSHA reported that it met with FSIS several times to discuss chemical exposures, referrals, and issues of jurisdiction in state plan states. FSIS subsequently shared the results from a NIOSH health hazard evaluation that was conducted, as well as the efforts to track the source of the infected birds. To fully implement this recommendation, FSIS should strengthen the MOU and develop a mechanism to regularly evaluate it would help ensure that the goals of the MOU are met; leveraging FSIS's presence in plants provides the federal government with a cost-effective opportunity to protect worker safety and health.

Recommendation: The FSIS Administrator should develop a process to regularly share the worker safety information it collects during its review of new chemicals with FSIS inspectors, plant management, OSHA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: FSIS stated that the agency already has a process for sharing chemical safety information with its inspectors. However, FSIS has not provided us with evidence that it has shared the worker safety information it collects related to new chemicals, such as safety information that is specific for dilution levels and conditions of use at plants, as noted in the report. FSIS also stated that it would take certain steps to share information about approval of chemicals with other agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH, but the steps identified did not include sharing worker safety information. Incorporating worker safety information would further help enhance this information sharing. FSIS further stated that some of the information collected during its review of new chemicals may be proprietary.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should pursue formal agreements with countries exporting seafood to the United States that commit these countries to test for drugs of concern to FDA and the corresponding maximum residue levels (MRLs) that FDA established for these drugs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA partially agreed with our recommendation. According to FDA, the agency is working on a plan to explore the viability of reaching cooperative arrangements with foreign regulatory bodies concerning imported aqua-cultured seafood. In exploring such arrangements, FDA stated that it will seek to explore a means by which the agency can leverage foreign regulatory bodies' seafood safety programs to provide additional oversight for seafood destined for the United States. According to FDA, such arrangements would be negotiated depending on the country's specific situation. We will continue to monitor FDA's specific efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should require as part of an equivalence determination that countries exporting catfish to the United States include in their residue monitoring plans the drugs of concern to FSIS and the corresponding maximum residue levels. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of December 2019, FSIS had not yet acted on this recommendation. According to FSIS officials, the agency made a request to the USDA Office of General Counsel for their opinion on the legality of the recommendation. FSIS is waiting for OGC's response to that request. FSIS maintains that the information submitted by foreign countries as part of the equivalence determination that outlines their chemical residue monitoring plans and the review by the FSIS equivalence staff to ensure these countries employ an equivalent level of public health protection as that of the US already addresses this recommendation. We will continue to monitor how FSIS addresses this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should coordinate and communicate with FSIS in developing drug residue testing methods and corresponding maximum residue levels for imported seafood that may also be applicable to imported catfish. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. According to FDA officials, the agency shared its testing methods for two drugs with FSIS and as of as of April 2019, FSIS and FDA were using the same method for measuring and confirming these two unapproved drugs. In August 2020, FDA told GAO that the agencies convene quarterly to discuss emerging and ongoing research needs in laboratory method development and the establishment of drug residue limits in seafood. We commend FDA and FSIS for taking these steps to share information on testing methods. However, GAO found that the agencies continue to use different multi-residue testing methods that look for different numbers of drugs--99 for FSIS and 40 for FDA--which results in the agencies using different maximum residue levels for some drugs. FDA's method can detect drugs that FSIS's does not and can detect some drugs at lower levels. FSIS's multi-residue method can detect 59 more drugs than FDA's method. The agencies do not have any plans to work on a multi-residue method both agencies can use.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should coordinate and communicate with FDA in developing drug residue testing methods and corresponding maximum residue levels for imported catfish that may also be applicable to other imported seafood. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: According to FSIS officials in May 2020, the agency coordinates with FDA and EPA to carry out the National Residue Program, which entails testing FSIS-regulated products, including catfish, for chemical compounds of public health concern. FSIS officials indicated that FSIS will continue to use its own test methods that meet the agency's pre-defined quality assurance criteria, are applicable to the particular commodity under its jurisdiction, and fit its business model. Thus, FSIS currently does not have plans to work on a multi-residue method that both it and FDA can use on imported seafood, including catfish, as we have recommended.

Recommendation: To reduce the cost of delivering the crop insurance program, Congress should consider repealing the 2014 farm bill requirement that any revision to the standard reinsurance agreement not reduce insurance companies' expected underwriting gains, and directing the Risk Management Agency to, during the next renegotiation of the agreement, (1) adjust the participating insurance companies' target rate of return to reflect market conditions and (2) assess the portion of premiums that participating insurance companies retain and, if warranted, adjust it.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.

Recommendation: To reduce year-to-year fluctuations in the administrative and operating expense subsidies that companies receive at the crop, state, and county levels, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency to consider adjusting the administrative and operating expense subsidy calculation method in a way that reduces the effects of changes in premiums caused by changes in crop prices or other factors when it renegotiates the standard reinsurance agreement.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure the transparency and accountability of USDA's selection of countries to receive in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should develop guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of February 2020, USDA has not developed guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify any potential negative effects, such as unusual changes in prices.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. USDA reported that proposed McGovern-Dole commodities are selected in coordination with the host governments in order to ensure they will not disrupt local production, markets, or food prices. However, as of February 2020, USDA has not taken action to monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify whether any potential negative effects have occurred, such as disruptions of local production or unusual changes in food prices. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should evaluate markets after the completion of McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress projects to determine whether markets were negatively affected during project implementation or after project completion.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation, and has reported actions to address the recommendation. GAO has requested documentation from USDA to confirm the actions taken. As of February 2020, USDA has not provided documentation confirming actions taken. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to direct EQIP program managers to coordinate with the leaders of USDA's CEAP to help ensure that CEAP studies consider the practical limitations and trade-offs faced by program managers and to provide program managers with better information to target EQIP funds where they will optimize environmental benefits.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to revise guidance on state offices' EQIP allocation processes, stipulating that data on environmental concerns, where available, should be a primary factor influencing allocations within states.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish a review process at the regional level for review and concurrence of EQIP payment rates above a threshold (e.g., rates greater than 50 percent, with justification).

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to modify guidance and ranking tools so that they more accurately value an EQIP application's anticipated environmental benefits relative to estimated costs.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance USAID's financial oversight of implementing partners' spending to implement and support Title II development and emergency projects, the USAID Administrator should take steps to ensure that it collects complete and consistent monitoring data from implementing partners for Title II development and emergency projects on the use of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement as well as data on the use of Title II funding for internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH) costs, in accordance with established requirements.

Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2017, USAID informed us that new Title II development awards would require partners to adhere to a requirement that it added in July 2017 to the Food for Peace development award template, which requires programs to provide quarterly performance reports on actual cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. USAID also noted that it had developed a new WFP emergency award template with reporting requirements for monitoring data on cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. In February 2018, USAID provided support that it has developed training and standardized oversight staff roles and responsibilities to help ensure that complete and consistent monitoring data is collected for Title II development and emergency projects. However, USAID still needs to provide evidence that it collects complete and consistent monitoring data from implementing partners for Title II projects, in accordance with established requirements. As of September 2020, we continue to monitor USAID's ongoing actions taken in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to develop a process, which may include time frames, to establish appropriate durations of use on labels of all medically important antibiotics used in food animals.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA published a notice in the Federal Register In September 2016 requesting information from the public about how to establish appropriately targeted durations of use for therapeutic products affected by Guidance for Industry #213 with no defined duration of use. According to HHS, FDA evaluated the comments received and plans to develop a strategy to address this issue. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA published a Request for Applications on April 1, 2019 for study proposals to help establish more targeted or defined durations of use for approved medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed of food-producing animals. There are currently no such products approved for use in water with an undefined duration of use. According to HHS, due to significant scientific and technical challenges, FDA anticipates that this initiative will require substantial time to fully implement so the primary objective is to update product dosage regimens to better target when and for how long the drug may be used.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to establish steps to increase veterinary oversight of medically important antibiotics administered in routes other than feed and water, such as injections and tablets.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA recognizes that a limited number of medically important antimicrobial products, available in dosage forms other than feed or water (e.g., injectable), continue to be marketed as OTC products and the agency intends to work with the sponsors to put these products under veterinary oversight. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA released a broad 5-year plan in September 2018 outlining steps to support stewardship of medically important antimicrobials in veterinary settings. As part of that plan, FDA intends to publish a draft strategy, likely in the form of draft guidance for industry, to bring all dosage forms (such as injectables and tablets) of medically important antimicrobial drugs under veterinary oversight. The draft strategy will also provide a framework, including proposed timelines, for transitioning from over-the-counter to prescription marketing status for all approved medically important antimicrobial drugs that are not yet subject to veterinary oversight. FDA plans to issue this draft strategy no later than the end of fiscal year 2019. In conjunction with issuing the draft strategy, FDA intends to publish a list of affected new animal drug applications.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to develop performance measures and targets for actions to manage the use of antibiotics such as revising the veterinary feed directive and developing guidance documents on judicious use.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS noted that FDA has taken steps to develop performance measures and targets. According to HHS, FDA issued a final rule in May 2016 revising annual reporting requirements for drug sponsors of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals to obtain estimates of sales broken out by major food-producing species (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys). Additionally, in August 2017, FDA published a paper proposing the use of a biomass denominator to adjust annual data on the volume of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals in the United States. According to HHS, this adjusted estimate will provide insight into broad shifts in the volume of antimicrobials sold for use in food-producing animals. FDA is also funding two grants for antimicrobial use data collection. These collection efforts are intended to provide part of the baseline information on antimicrobial use practices in the four major food-producing animal groups (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys), which is a critical element in measuring overall impact of the agency's judicious use strategy. FDA expects these data collection efforts to provide important information on methodologies to help optimize long-term strategies to collect and report such antimicrobial use data. In addition, FDA has been working in close collaboration with USDA, including providing input on recent surveys administered by USDA to collect information on antimicrobial use on farms. In July 2019, according to HHS, FDA agrees that performance measures and targets are needed to help gauge the success of antimicrobial stewardship efforts. While the agency continues to work on developing such measures and targets, FDA reported a decrease in domestic sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials intended for use in food-producing animals (e.g. decreased by 33 percent from 2016 through 2017). HHS noted that the reduction in sales volume is an important indicator that ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact even though sales data do not necessarily reflect antimicrobial use.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of APHIS and the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to work with the Director of CDC to develop a framework for deciding when on-farm investigations are warranted during outbreaks.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2018, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) stated that it is working closely with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and HHS' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a framework for deciding when on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities are warranted. In September 2019, according to APHIS officials, the lead agencies, including APHIS, FSIS, and CDC, have agreed that it is imperative that cross sector partners from a range of animal agriculture industries be included in developing the framework that was requested in GAO's final report. A framework for making decisions regarding on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities simply will not work without including industry sector partners in the development of the framework, according to APHIS officials. Due to the logistics of getting all of the cross sector partners together, APHIS is unable to schedule the next meeting in the series to develop the Pre-Harvest Framework until December 2019. APHIS anticipates that it will take the remainder of fiscal year 2020 to work through additional meetings with partners and finalize this framework.

Recommendation: To guide the nation's efforts to improve the federal food safety oversight system and address ongoing fragmentation, the appropriate entities within the EOP should, in consultation with relevant federal agencies and other stakeholders, develop a national strategy that states the purpose of the strategy, establishes high-level sustained leadership, identifies resource requirements, monitors progress, and identifies short- and long-term actions to improve the food safety oversight system.

Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, the Executive Office of the President had not acted on our recommendation. In January 2020, OMB told GAO there were no plans to develop a national strategy on food safety. Instead, OMB said that the administration planned to work toward greater efficiency and interagency coordination within the framework provided by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Recommendation: To strengthen DOL's efforts to ensure employers protect the safety and health of workers at meat and poultry plants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, working together with the Commissioner of Labor Statistics as appropriate, to develop and implement a cost-effective method for gathering more complete data on musculoskeletal disorders.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency also noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement. DOL reported in 2018 that it is reviewing its options for moving forward and is exploring accurate coding and recordkeeping of MSDs and drivers for underreporting in poultry processing and elsewhere. As of March 2020, OSHA stated that it continues to examine ways to work with BLS to address the recommendation. We will monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To develop a better understanding of meat and poultry sanitation workers' injuries and illnesses, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to study how they could regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement, particularly due to privacy concerns related to using form 301 (injury and illness incident report) and form 300 (log of work-related illnesses and injuries. DOL also noted that form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) does not have the specificity necessary to develop an understanding of worker injuries and illnesses in specific occupations. Our report explained that plants may use various job titles in their OSHA logs for sanitation workers they employ directly. However, those workers who are employed by contracted sanitation companies may be included in the sanitation companies' OSHA logs, and there may be nothing to indicate that their workplace is a meat or poultry plant. Thus, the problem is not the data source, but rather how to identify these particular workers by occupation and by industry in order to collect information about the full extent of injuries and illnesses in meat and poultry plants. We reiterate our recommendation that OSHA should work together with BLS to study how to regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry.

Recommendation: To develop a better understanding of meat and poultry sanitation workers' injuries and illnesses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to have the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conduct a study of the injuries and illnesses these workers experience, including their causes and how they are reported. Given the challenges to gaining access to this population, NIOSH may want to coordinate with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop ways to initiate this study.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and noted the previous difficulties NIOSH has had gaining access to these workplaces and the potential resource commitment involved in conducting such a study. We acknowledge this access challenge and noted in our report that OSHA has negotiated access for NIOSH in other industries, hence the rationale for recommending that NIOSH may want to coordinate with OSHA. In February 2020, NIOSH reported it met with industry associations to discuss areas of mutual interest for research on worker safety in poultry plants. However, according to NIOSH, the advent of COVID-19 and its challenges have limited plans for field studies for FY20. During the COVID-19 epidemic NIOSH informed us its representatives have: (1) created COVID-19 safety guidelines with OSHA and (2) performed more than 30 meat and poultry worksite evaluations focusing on the prevention of COVID-19. NIOSH notes that it continues to have an interest in learning more about and providing assistance to minimize various types of illnesses and injuries that may affect meat and poultry sanitation workers, and at some point in the future they hope to "re-initiate" their interactions with stakeholders such as the National Chicken Council and US Egg & Poultry Association on the study of peracetic acid exposure in the poultry processing industry. Our recommendation was aimed at increasing the understanding of the various types of illnesses and injuries that are common among meat and poultry sanitation workers, including their causes and how they are reported. We look forward to hearing about future studies that address this topic.

Recommendation: To strengthen USDA's ability to better manage and monitor the progress of the Blueprint, including efforts to streamline and improve administrative services, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to develop a complete list identifying all of the Blueprint efforts under way and document key information needed to monitor their progress, such as status of implementation, time frames for completion, and related performance measures.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen USDA's ability to better manage and monitor the progress of the Blueprint, including efforts to streamline and improve administrative services, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to reexamine the adequacy of the staff and budget resources committed to the day-to-day management of the Blueprint, and further leverage existing departmental resources as needed.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve USDA's efforts to identify and track the benefits of the Blueprint, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to document the methodologies used to calculate any savings claimed for the Blueprint effort to ensure any such estimate is based on quality information.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve USDA's efforts to identify and track the benefits of the Blueprint, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief Financial Officer to develop a cost-effective method, using existing data systems, to collect and track USDA's spending on administrative services to identify baseline spending and target areas for future cost savings.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve USDA's efforts to identify and track the benefits of the Blueprint, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to systematically identify and track nonfinancial benefits from USDA's Blueprint efforts to better gauge the Blueprint's progress and more fully report its results.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance USDA's efforts to share lessons learned from the Blueprint, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to maintain and promote existing web-based collaboration tools, including keeping information in these tools current, for agencies and staff offices to report their experiences and lessons learned from their Blueprint efforts to help strengthen internal information sharing and inform future efforts.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve USDA's ability to better understand the economic impacts of unintended mixing of GE and other crops, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to work with all relevant USDA stakeholders, including APHIS and the Organic Working Group, to determine what additional information should be sought in future organic surveys, such as the costs of reshipping and re-storing shipments rejected because of unintended GE presence, as well as the costs associated with finding new buyers for such shipments.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In its August 2016 Statement of Action on our report, USDA did not provide any new information on actions it has taken, if any, to implement this recommendation. For example, there was no indication whether stakeholders internal to the department had continued to meet to discuss the 2014 Organic Survey results and how to move forward with future survey questions to obtain additional data, such as data needed to better understand the economic impacts of unintended mixing with GE crops. As of September 2020, USDA did not have an update regarding the implementation of this recommendation. We will continue to follow up on USDA's efforts.

Recommendation: To improve USDA's ability to better understand the economic impacts of unintended mixing of GE and other crops, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of NASS to include producers, growing identity-preserved crops, in addition to organic producers in USDA's survey efforts.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In its August 2016 Statement of Action on our report, USDA did not provide any new information on actions it has taken, if any, to implement this recommendation. We continue to believe that USDA should survey producers growing identity-preserved crops regarding their potential economic losses from unintended GE presence, as is being done for organic producers. As we previously reported, U.S. acreage planted to identity-preserved crops is significantly greater than that planted to organic crops; yet, little is known about the economic costs to identity-preserved farmers of unintended mixing. As of September 2020, USDA did not have an update regarding the implementation of this recommendation. We will continue to follow up on USDA's efforts.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations, the Secretary of Agriculture, as a co-chair of the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, should coordinate with other Task Force agencies that have monitoring responsibilities to develop a mechanism, such as a federal monitoring plan, that would (1) establish roles and responsibilities of lead and support agencies, (2) establish shared outcomes and goals, and (3) obtain input from relevant stakeholders, such as states.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2019, USDA had taken relevant and positive actions but had not yet fully implemented GAO's February 2016 recommendation for monitoring wild, native bees. According to a senior USDA official, a Native Bee Monitoring Steering Committee composed of representatives from four USDA agencies is developing a response to the recommendation. According to the official, the steering committee has taken or plans to take several steps regarding a monitoring plan. First, the steering committee held a stakeholder listening session in June 2017 to obtain public opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring program is important, (2) the type of information and data needed to adequately conduct monitoring, and (3) how the public would like to see the monitoring data used. Highlights of the input received at the listening session and the goals of the national monitoring plan were discussed in a symposium held in November 2017 at the National Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. USDA gathered additional recommendations from symposium participants based on monitoring programs for other declining species of concern, such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Second, the steering committee drafted a prospectus that will delineate activities being conducted by relevant federal agencies with responsibilities for surveying species of concern, including plans to coordinate activities and outline individual roles and responsibilities towards facilitating a national monitoring plan. According to the senior official, the committee worked with USDA officials to ask other federal agencies associated with the Pollinator Task Force to summarize their current and future activities in support of monitoring native bee populations. The committee completed its report entitled The Current State of Federal Agency Coordination in Monitoring Native Bee Health in January 2019. Third, the steering committee held a "Scientists' Summit" in April 2018 at the National Conservation Training Center. The purpose was to obtain scientific expert opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring strategy is needed; (2) what such a monitoring strategy would measure and be used for; (3) standard minimum protocols that would improve data quality and sharing; and (4) databases that could be used to house data from a monitoring strategy. Participants included university and governmental experts on bees, statisticians, modelers and ecologists, and conservation biologists assessing other species in decline. Workshop discussion leaders subsequently drafted for publication in a scientific journal a whitepaper with recommendations on a U.S. national native bee monitoring strategy. However, as of October 2019, according to senior USDA officials, the white paper had not yet been accepted for publication. We support the agencies' efforts to date to implement the recommendation. However, we believe that the agencies must take additional steps to improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations and will continue to monitor their actions. In 2020, according to a senior USDA official, a National Native Bee Monitoring Research Coordination Network is being formed to address GAO's recommendation to develop a federal monitoring plan for wild, native bees, with the project expected to begin in spring 2020. Some USDA officials told us that without a team to coordinate a monitoring plan, individual agency efforts may be ineffective in providing the needed information in trends on wild, native bees in the United States. The project is scheduled to be completed in 3 years.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA has relevant and timely information to support management decisions, including the critical information necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs compounded for animals, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of the FDA to develop policy or guidance for agency staff that specifies circumstances under which FDA will or will not enforce compounding regulations for animals and clearly define key terms.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, FDA released for public comment its new Draft Guidance for Industry #256 - Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances. The draft guidance describes FDA's policy regarding the compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances including the conditions under which FDA does not intend to take enforcement action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's requirements for approval, adequate directions for use, and current Good Manufacturing Practices. We will review the updated guidance when it is finalized and determine if it addresses this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA indicated that, in response to numerous requests from external stakeholders, the comment period on the draft guidance has been extended to October 2020. Once the comments have been reviewed, FDA anticipates finalizing the guidance by the end of calendar year 2021.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA has relevant and timely information to support management decisions, including the critical information necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs compounded for animals, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of the FDA to consistently document the bases for FDA's decisions about how or whether it followed up on warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints about drug compounding for animals.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2019, FDA reported to GAO that when the Draft Guidance for Industry #256 was issued that calendar year, FDA intended to develop a risk-based compliance program to address compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances. As part of that compliance program, FDA reported that it intended to consistently document the basis for its decisions about what actions are taken, for example, warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints. In August 2020, FDA reported that a working group has been formed to develop a risk-based compliance strategy, which will include a process for documenting the basis for FDA's decisions about how or whether it followed up on warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints about drug compounding for animals. FDA anticipates implementing this strategy simultaneously with the finalization of Guidance for Industry #256, which is anticipated to occur at the end of calendar year 2021. We will follow-up with FDA regarding these actions and determine if the actions address our recommendation.

Recommendation: While recognizing that cargo preference serves policy goals established by Congress with respect to the U.S. merchant marine, including maintenance of a fleet capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, Congress should consider clarifying cargo preference legislation regarding the definition of "geographic area" to ensure that agencies can fully utilize the flexibility Congress granted to them when it lowered the CPFA requirement.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: GAO did not receive comments on the Matter for Congressional Consideration. As of July 2020, GAO found no evidence of legislation having been introduced to clarify the definition of "geographic area" with regard to cargo preference laws.

Recommendation: To improve agencies' guidance development, review, evaluation, and dissemination processes for non-significant guidance, we recommend that the Secretaries of USDA, HHS, DOL, and Education should improve the usability of selected component websites to ensure that the public can easily find, access, and comment on online guidance. These improvements could be informed by the web and customer satisfaction metrics that components have collected on their websites. Some examples of changes that could facilitate public access to online guidance include (1) improving website usability by clarifying which links contain guidance; (2) highlighting new or important guidance; and (3) ensuring that posted guidance is current.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In comments printed in the April 2015 final report, HHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that it would review current links to guidance documents and explore ways to enhance their visibility and usability. As of June 2020, GAO is working with HHS officials to obtain additional updates and documentation regarding the department's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reduce the cost of the crop insurance program and achieve budgetary savings for deficit reduction or other purposes, Congress should consider reducing premium subsidies for the highest income participants.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, Congress has not acted on this matter.

Recommendation: To better inform Congress in the future about crop insurance program costs, reduce present costs, and ensure greater actuarial soundness, the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency should monitor and report on crop insurance costs in areas that have higher crop production risks.

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Risk Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better inform Congress in the future about crop insurance program costs, reduce present costs, and ensure greater actuarial soundness, the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency should, as appropriate, increase its adjustments of premium rates in areas with higher crop production risks by as much as the full 20 percent annually that is allowed by law.

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Risk Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure the safety of food imported into the United States, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs should complete an analysis to determine the annual number of foreign food inspections that is sufficient to ensure comparable safety of imported and domestic food. If the inspection numbers from that evaluation are different from the inspection targets mandated in FSMA, FDA should report the results to Congress and recommend appropriate legislative changes.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: On March 25, 2020, GAO staff met with FDA officials to discuss the status of the recommendation. FDA officials said that they cannot meet the number of foreign inspections required under FSMA due to capacity constraints, and FDA's current strategy for the safety of imported food relies on a "cumulative oversight" approach involving multiple programs (including the Third-Party Certification Program, the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program, and systems recognition), in addition to foreign inspections. FDA officials said that it could be a number of years before these programs are fully implemented and that FDA will provide GAO with more specific status updates on the implementation and monitoring of each of these programs in future responses to this recommendation. Because FDA is still implementing their cumulative oversight approach and has not reported the number of foreign inspections required to ensure imported food safety, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: Because challenges associated with the fragmented federal food safety system are long-standing, decision makers do not have an integrated perspective on federal food safety performance, and centralized mechanisms for broad-based collaboration have not been sustained, Congress should consider directing OMB to develop a government-wide performance plan for food safety that includes results oriented goals and performance measures and a discussion of strategies and resources.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress had not acted on this matter. OMB informed GAO in January 2020 that they had no plans to develop a government-wide performance plan for food safety. We continue to believe that such a plan is necessary for effective federal oversight of food safety.

Recommendation: Because challenges associated with the fragmented federal food safety system are long-standing, decision makers do not have an integrated perspective on federal food safety performance, and centralized mechanisms for broad-based collaboration have not been sustained, Congress should consider formalizing the FSWG through statute to help ensure sustained leadership across food safety agencies over time.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress had not acted on this matter.

Recommendation: To better inform users of the annual monitoring report about the frequency and scope of pesticide tolerance violations, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to disclose in the agency's annual pesticide monitoring program report which pesticides with EPA-established tolerances the agency did not test for in its pesticide monitoring program and the potential effect of not testing for those pesticides.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February 2020, FDA said that the recommendation should be closed as not implemented. FDA has previously said that it remained concerned that the disclosure of pesticides for which FDA does not test would enable users to more easily circumvent the pesticide monitoring program, which could jeopardize public health and, at a minimum, would undermine FDA's law enforcement efforts. In addition, FDA said that it discloses in its annual reports all pesticides tested for within the reports' annual scope as required by the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988. FDA's annual reports also clarify that not all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances were analyzed. FDA said that the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act of 1988 does not specifically direct the agency to report information on untested pesticides with EPA-established tolerances. We continue to believe that disclosing the pesticides that are not included in FDA's testing program would be consistent with OMB best practices for reporting limitations relevant to analyzing and interpreting results from a data collection effort. In particular, we continue to believe that FDA should be more transparent about the potential effect of not testing for all pesticides for which EPA has established tolerances. We also note that the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service implemented a similar recommendation to disclose information about its pesticide monitoring program. As a result, we are keeping this recommendation open.

Recommendation: To reduce the cost of the crop insurance program and achieve budgetary savings for deficit reduction or other purposes, Congress should consider reducing the level of federal premium subsidies for revenue crop insurance policies. In doing so, Congress should consider whether to make the full amount of this reduction in an initial year, or to phase in the full amount of this reduction over several years. In addition, Congress should consider directing the Secretary of Agriculture to monitor and report on the impact, if any, of the reduction on farmer participation in the crop insurance program.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.

Recommendation: To ensure appropriate levels of employees' supervision and guidance for the workforces of USDA's service center agencies, consistent with OPM guidance, the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief Human Capital Officer, should revise departmental policy targeting a uniform supervisory ratio so that the service center agencies can identify appropriate supervisory ratios based on a documented analysis of their specific customer needs and workload distribution.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve EPA's management of the conditional registration process, the Administrator of EPA should direct the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs to complete plans to automate data related to conditional registrations to more readily track the status of these registrations and related registrant and agency actions and identify potential problems requiring management attention.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is providing status information on conditional registrations issued from 2000 through 2020 on the web at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/conditional-pesticide-registration. However, because plans are not yet complete for automating data related to conditional registrations to more readily track their status and related information, this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, due to the government shutdown and delays in the award of its mission support IT contract, IT modernization efforts enabling the Office of Pesticide Programs to track conditionally registered products electronically are now targeted for completion in 2021 rather than 2020.

Recommendation: In light of declining discretionary budgets, to reduce or eliminate the reliance of the AQI program on taxpayer funding, Congress should consider allowing USDA to set AQI fees to recover the aggregate estimated costs of AQI services--thereby allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to set fee rates to recover the full costs of the AQI program.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, Congress had not passed legislation to give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to set fee rates to fully recover the aggregate costs of agricultural quarantine inspection (AQI) services, as GAO suggested in March 2013. The current AQI fee authority does not permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set AQI fees to recover the aggregate estimated costs of AQI services. Authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set fee rates to recover the full costs of the AQI program would save the federal government money by reducing the program's reliance on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's annual Salaries and Expenses appropriation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider amending USDA's authorization to assess AQI fees on bus companies, private vessels, and private aircraft and include in those fees the costs of AQI services for the passengers on those buses, private vessels, and private aircraft.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, Congress had not passed legislation to give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to assess agricultural quarantine inspection (AQI) fees on private vessels, private aircraft, and commercial buses and include in those fees the costs of AQI services for the passengers on those vehicles. The current AQI fee authority does not permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assess AQI fees on private vessels, private aircraft and commercial buses and to recover, through those fees, the costs of AQI services for the passengers on those vehicles.

Recommendation: To reduce the cost of the crop insurance program, Congress may wish to consider limiting the subsidy for premiums that an individual farmer can receive each year or reducing the subsidy for all farmers participating in the program, or both limiting and reducing these subsidies.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.

Recommendation: To better ensure FDA's oversight of the safety of GRAS substances, the Commissioner of FDA should develop a strategy to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including taking steps such as issuing guidance for companies on conflict of interest and requiring information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists' independence.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FDA published a notification of availability for the draft guidance "Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel: Guidance for Industry," with a request for comments on the draft guidance by May 15, 2018. FDA indicated that the draft guidance represents FDA's current thinking on strategies to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies' GRAS determinations, including assessing potential GRAS panel members for conflicts of interest. As of July 2020, FDA had not yet finalized the guidance, so we are leaving the recommendation open.

Recommendation: To provide more efficient, consistent, and effective federal oversight of the nation's food supply, Congress should consider commissioning the National Academy of Sciences or a blue ribbon panel to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative organizational food safety structures and report the results of such an analysis to Congress.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002 Farm Bill) established a national Food Safety Commission charged with making specific recommendations for drafting legislative language. Among other things, the Commission was to make recommendations on how to improve the food safety system, create a harmonized, central framework for managing federal food safety programs, and enhance the effectiveness of federal food safety resources. However, as of January 2017, as far as current staff can ascertain, the Commission was never formed, and no recommendations were ever produced. Thus, although Congress acted to create a food safety commission through legislation, the substance of our matter--recommendations for analyzing alternative food safety structures--was not implemented. GAO subsequently made the same matter for congressional consideration in several later products, and the matter also appeared in the annual GAO Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation Report. As of March 2020, it remained unaddressed.