Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection
May 2008
Report Highlights
The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP)
has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of food and dairy
products produced and sold by approximately 29,400 food and dairy
establishments in Wisconsin, including dairy farms, dairy plants, food
processors, food warehouses, grocery stores, delicatessens, and other retail
food establishments. DATCP also regulates certain professionals involved
in the production of food and dairy products and oversees contracts with
local health departments that regulate approximately 5,000 retail food establishments.
However, its responsibilities do not include restaurants, which
are regulated by the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS).
DATCP’s food and dairy program is funded primarily with license fees
paid by food and dairy establishments and professionals and with general
purpose revenue (GPR). In fiscal year (FY) 2006-07, its expenditures totaled
$8.4 million and funded 97.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions. To
determine the program’s effectiveness, we reviewed DATCP’s efforts to:
conduct timely routine food and dairy safety inspections;
collect and test food and dairy product samples and environmental
samples from food preparation areas in order to monitor compliance
with food safety procedures;
ensure permanent and continuous compliance with state food and
dairy safety regulations by all regulated entities;
oversee local health departments’ regulation of retail food
establishments; and
respond to food emergencies.
Inspection Timeliness
Approximately one-half of the food
and dairy licenses issued by DATCP
in FY 2006-07 were for dairy farms,
and 84.2 percent of these farms had
Grade A permits to produce milk
that can be sold as fluid milk for
human consumption. The remaining
farms were classified as Grade B
and produce milk for use in manufactured
products, such as cheese.
To help ensure the safety of food and
dairy products, DATCP regularly
inspects food and dairy establishments
to determine compliance with
food and dairy safety standards.
Inspection frequency is based
on state law or informal DATCP
guidelines and ranges from every
three months to every two years,
based on establishment type and the
potential risk of foodborne illness.
From FY 2004-05 through FY 2006-07,
DATCP completed 66,874 inspections
of dairy establishments
and 12,869 food inspections. We
found that 98.7 percent of the
dairy inspections were conducted
when scheduled, compared to
68.3 percent of food inspections.
Of the 4,929 inspections completed
after they were scheduled, 29.3 percent
were completed within 30 days,
but 8.3 percent were overdue by
more than one year.
DATCP inspections were more
timely for establishments whose
inspection frequency is specified
in state law. For example, inspections
of dairy farms and Grade A
dairy plants almost always adhered
to the frequencies specified in
state law.
State law does not specify inspection
frequencies for Grade B dairy plants
or retail food establishments. We
found that 30.1 percent of inspections
of Grade B dairy plants and
31.7 percent of food establishment
inspections were not completed
when scheduled.
Sampling and Testing
DATCP routinely collects and
analyzes samples of products from
all Grade A dairy plants to fulfill
mandatory national and state
testing requirements intended
to ensure that the milk has been
pasteurized and is free of drug
residue and harmful bacteria.
In most instances, DATCP’s sampling
efforts met the requirements.
Only 1.2 percent of the results
of 29,454 tests conducted from
FY 2002-03 through FY 2006-07
exceeded specified limits for
temperature or bacteria. However,
in 26 of the 54 instances in which
test results showed high levels
of bacteria in sampled products,
DATCP responded an average of
22 days past the required time frame.
In addition, DATCP tested
12,459 samples of food and food
preparation environments for the
presence of pathogens that can
cause foodborne illnesses. The
collection and testing of these
samples, which are taken from food
processors, dairy plants, and retail
food establishments, is not required
by state law but is guided by a plan
developed annually by DATCP.
We found that while the number
of environmental samples collected
increased 40.0 percent from
FY 2002-03 through FY 2006-07,
DATCP collected substantially
fewer environmental samples than
it had planned in each of these years.
This is a concern because DATCP
is performing fewer tests on food
and is increasing its reliance on
environmental sampling to monitor
food safety.
Enforcement Practices
DATCP seeks voluntary compliance
from all regulated entities, and this
approach appears to be effective for
the vast majority of regulated establishments.
In 94.4 percent of routine
inspections, no need for follow-up
regulatory action was identified.
When additional action is needed,
DATCP’s policy is to use progressively
more stringent enforcement
action to gain “permanent and
continuous” compliance with
food and dairy regulations.
To evaluate the effectiveness
of DATCP’s compliance and
enforcement efforts in instances
requiring additional action, we
reviewed 50 cases that suggested
significant noncompliance with
food and dairy safety regulations.
We believe DATCP did not take
timely and sufficient enforcement
action in 13 of these cases.
For example, in September 2004
DATCP placed a Grade A dairy
farm under a conditional license,
but only after having identified
130 violations during 29 inspections
over a period of more than
seven years. DATCP temporarily
suspended the farm’s conditional
license for four days in May 2006
but issued a regular license four
months later, even though the farm
had not achieved permanent and
continuous compliance with dairy
regulations.
DATCP’s difficulties in effectively
gaining compliance with establishments
that do not willingly
cooperate are longstanding and
were noted in our December 1983
and November 1985 audits of its
food and dairy safety program.
Local Oversight
DATCP has entered into agreements
with 34 local health departments
to regulate 51.7 percent of grocery
stores, delicatessens, and other retail
food establishments in Wisconsin.
The local health departments license
and inspect retail food establishments,
establish and collect fees, and
annually pay DATCP 10.0 percent
of the license fee revenue it would
otherwise have received for licensing
the retail food establishments.
To ensure consistency in conducting
inspections, DATCP provides
regular training and support for
local health departments that
appears to be sufficient and relevant.
Administrative rules require
DATCP to annually review and
evaluate the retail food safety efforts
of each participating local health
department. However, since 2004
DATCP has not conducted any of
the required local evaluations.
Instead, for the past two years it
has relied on self-reporting by
local health departments. This
strategy has been ineffective,
largely because only 21 of the 34
local health departments submitted
data to DATCP for FY 2006-07, and
not all of the reports submitted
contained complete information.
Food Emergencies
DATCP is the lead state agency
responsible for responding to
foodborne illnesses, disease
outbreaks, and other emergencies
in which the food supply is
threatened. It has developed
response plans based on the type
and scale of food emergency.
DATCP identified 41 food
emergencies from FY 2002-03
through FY 2006-07. Six of these
involved human illnesses and
affected between 1 and 61 people.
We reviewed the files for the
41 food emergencies and found
that DATCP took appropriate
action in responding to 40 cases.
However, a lack of documentation
prevented us from determining
whether appropriate action had
been taken in response to one case
involving listeria, a foodborne
pathogen, and DATCP was unable
to provide additional information
on this incident.
In addition, we found that staff
were not following all procedures
in DATCP’s food emergency
response manual, including keeping
a log of events and contacts during
a food emergency, critiquing the
process, and preparing a written
report after each case is closed.
For example, only 1 of the 41 food
emergency case files contained a
final written report.
Recommendations
We include recommendations
for DATCP to report to the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee by
January 5, 2009, on:
its efforts to develop formal inspection
frequency standards for
Grade B dairy plants and food
establishments and to measure
compliance of all regulated
establishments with inspection
frequency standards
(p. 22);
its efforts to increase the percentage
of planned environmental
samples that are collected and
tested annually
(p. 31);
its efforts to enhance the
timeliness and effectiveness
of food and dairy enforcement
actions, including requiring
establishments with conditional
licenses to achieve full regulatory
compliance before a regular
license is issued
(p. 40);
its plans to improve the review of
local health departments’ retail
food safety activities
(p. 46); and
its efforts to ensure compliance
with internal food emergency
safety response procedures
(p. 52).