Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Food supply"
GAO-20-711R, Sep 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
GAO-19-391, Jun 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
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.
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.
GAO-17-74, Jan 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
GAO-15-666, Aug 26, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9601
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.
GAO-15-183, Jan 30, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-15-180, Dec 18, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress had not acted on this matter.
GAO-15-38, Oct 7, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-10-246, Feb 3, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-2649
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.