French fry fuel.

weaknesses. First, the efforts to determine the risks of chemicals are inconsistent because the agencies do not assess risks in the same way. Therefore, they may arrive at different risk estimates for the same chemical. The GAO found that the USDA's National Residue Program, which is supposed to ensure that hazardous levels of drugs, pesticides , and other industrial chemicals do not contaminate meat and poultry, is inadequate because testing is not comprehensive and the methodology for collecting samples is flawed. The Food Safety and Inspections Service (FSIS), within the USDA, administers the program, which is designed to identify and select chemicals that could pose human health hazards, conduct residue tests in poultry and meat for those chemicals, and take enforcement action against those who market products containing dangerous levels ofthe chemicals. FSIS receives assistance from the EPA, which establishes residue limits and provides information on pesticides approved for domestic use, and the FDA, which does the same for approved animal drugs. FSIS collects samples of meat and poultry from slaughter plants and U.S. ports of entry and analyzes them. Any violations are referred to the FDA for investigation and enforcement action. The GAO found that FSIS does not adjust its testing for imported meat and poultry to include problems with heavy metal residues or animal drugs and pesticides not allowed in the United States but used by exporting nations. Thus, FSIS does not know the extent to which potentially harmful residues may or may not exist in imported meat and poultry. Also, said GAO, FSIS does not always have complete information on chemicals that are not used in the United States or on new chemicals that are created each year. The GAO also examined the input from the EPA and the FDA and found that these agencies are not able to provide all the information and assistance the FSIS needs for the program. One problem is that questions have been raised about the health and environmental effects of many of the pesticides previously approved by the EPA, as well as about the regulatory limits set for their residues in foods. The EPA is reevaluating these pesticides , but it estimates that it will not complete the reregistration process until 2006. The GAO also points out that problems exist with the FDA's handling of violations due to limited resources and legislative restrictions. The FDA investigated only about 20% of the …

cides, and other industrial chemicals do not contaminate meat and poultry, is inadequate because testing is not comprehensive and the methodology for collecting samples is flawed. The Food Safety and Inspections Service (FSIS), within the USDA, administers the program, which is designed to identify and select chemicals that could pose human health hazards, conduct residue tests in poultry and meat for those chemicals, and take enforcement action against those who market products containing dangerous levels ofthe chemicals. FSIS receives assistance from the EPA, which establishes residue limits and provides information on pesticides approved for domestic use, and the FDA, which does the same for approved animal drugs. FSIS collects samples of meat and poultry from slaughter plants and U.S. ports of entry and analyzes them. Any violations are referred to the FDA for investigation and enforcement action.
The GAO found that FSIS does not adjust its testing for imported meat and poultry to include problems with heavy metal residues or animal drugs and pesticides not allowed in the United States but used by exporting nations. Thus, FSIS does not know the extent to which potentially harmful residues may or may not exist in imported meat and poultry. Also, said GAO, FSIS does not always have complete information on chemicals that are not used in the United States or on new chemicals that are created each year.
The GAO also examined the input from the EPA and the FDA and found that these agencies are not able to provide all the information and assistance the FSIS needs for the program. One problem is that questions have been raised about the health and environmental effects of many of the pesticides previously approved by the EPA, as well as about the regulatory limits set for their residues in foods. The EPA is reevaluating these pesticides, but it estimates that it will not complete the reregistration process until 2006.
The GAO also points out that problems exist with the FDA's handling of violations due to limited resources and legislative restrictions. The FDA investigated only about 20% of the 21,439 violations that the FSIS reported to it from 1989 to 1992. Only one prosecution resulted from these investigations.
Rather than improving the current system, the GAO suggested that an alternative regulatory system for meat and poultry be developed. The report discussed an industry-operated risk-based system, overseen and monitored by the federal government. The GAO made other recommendations for the current food safety system, but the office feels that a better approach is for Congress to create a single agency responsible for carrying out a cohesive set of food safety laws.
The GAO obtained comment from the USDA, EPA, and HHS, as well as two industry trade groups that represent over 80% of the meat and poultry industry. Al agreed that a process-oriented, risk-based approach that tries to prevent residue problems from occurring would be more effective than the current system that relies on limited testing of end products to detect residues.
The GAO also found problems with the regulatory laws because of inconsistencies within the overall federal structure and sys-teams for controlling chemicals in all foods. For example, chemicals posing similar risks are in some cases regulated differently under different laws. Also, the laws do not require periodic reevaluations of compounds against the most current scientific standards, nor do the laws specifically require the agencies to monitor environmental contaminants in food.
The GAO also concluded that endproduct testing and interagency referrals cannot detect and prevent contaminated food products from entering the food supply and do not effectively penalize violators and deter future violations. The GAO says that agencies do not have enough resources to effectively carry out end-product testing, which requires extensive resources to obtain comprehensive information on chemicals and develop test methods to detect all chemicals of concern.
To mitigate the problems with the current fragmented system, the GAO recommends that Congress enact uniform food safety laws that resolve differences in chemical standards and provide agencies with adequate oversight authorities, as well as direct agencies to develop systems that prevent problems, rather than simply identify them. The report also recommends that Congress should require that all foods eligible for import be produced under equivalent food safety systems.
The GAO received comments on these recommendations for changes in the system from USDA, the Department of Commerce, EPA, and FDA. USDA and the Department of Commerce generally concurred with GAO's recommendations. The EPA disagreed with the recommendation that a single food safety agency is needed and suggested that an interagency council be created instead. FDA did not concur with the report, saying that the information is outdated and does not support the conclusions and recommendations. However, the GAO said in response to FDA's comments that the information in the report was compiled from reports issued from 1990 to 1994.
The reports, "USDA's Role under the National Residue Program Should Be Reevluated" and "Changes Needed to Minimize Unsafe Chemicals in Food," were requested by the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations of the House Committee on Government Operations.

French Fry Fuel
French fry grease and potatoes may fuel trucks and buses in the future. Research by the University of Idaho and the J.R. Simplot Company, which producers french fries in Idaho, is examining the possible use of waste vegetable oil and fermented waste potatoes to fuel diesel engines.
The idea of recycling the waste of french fry plants into fuel sprang from 20 years of research at the University of Idaho. Researchers at the university have been investigating the use ofwaste vegetable oil as an alternative fuel since, "back in the energy crisis days," said Charles Peterson, a professor of agricultural engineering and a researcher at the university. Researchers speculate that the diesel fuel substitute, called biodiesel, could alleviate the country's reliance on imported oil. They estimate that converting 10% of America's cropland to the production of biodiesel could provide all the diesel fuel used in U.S. agriculture.
In addition, the environmental benefits of biodiesel are numerous, and research at the university has found that it is much more environmentally friendly than diesel. Use of vegetable oil and alcohol-based fuels could lead to a zero net gain in oxides of carbon emissions, scientists say, because they are part of the natural cycle of assimilation of carbon dioxide by plants for growth and development. Also, because vegetable oil has negligible levels of sulfur, its emissions of sulfur dioxide are lower than those of diesel fuel, thus reducing the potential for acid rain.
Biodiesel has also been found to be less threatening to the environment and wildlife than diesel in the case of spills. The fuel is biodegradable and breaks down quickly, preventing long-term damage to soil and water. Tests show that water bugs that succumbed to only minimal diesel spills survived biodiesel spills 70 times greater, Peterson said.
In addition, the production of biodiesel could help with another environmental problem: crowded landfills. Excess waste oils and animal fats generated from various plants and companies could be used in creating fuel, rather than taking up space in landfills.
Converting vegetable oil to biodiesel involves a process called transesterification. This process uses alcohol, methanol, or ethanol, in the presence of a catalyst such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, to chemically break the molecule of the raw vegetable oil into a methyl or ethyl ester of vegetable oil and glycerol. Researchers at the University of Idaho have been successful in producing biodiesel from raw vegetable oil, and are now looking at using waste vegetable oil, such as that used in the production of french fries.
If they can develop a fuel that is comparable to the biodiesel made from raw vegetable oil, the Simplot Company will look at marketing and selling the product. According to Paul Mann, Simplot's manag-Fries to go. Waste french fry oil may become a fuel of the future. er of production planning and ethanol sales, the company began talking to the university researchers about a year ago. Simplot seemed like a good candidate for manufacturing biodiesel because it produces waste vegetable oil and ethanol, both of which are needed in transesterification.
The waste vegetable oil that is left over after producing french fries has been sold for use in cattle feed or pet food, Mann said. The ethanol is produced by grinding the waste starchy parts of the potato solids and fermenting them, and is also sold, he said.
Both the waste oil and the ethanol currently have markets, so they are not ending up in landfills. If they could be used in the production of biodiesel, Simplot may agree to change their current uses in order to serve a better purpose, Mann said.
Mann said that the company's original concern was whether there would be a market for biodiesel. However, after looking at the research and discussing the possibilities, Mann said he and others have decided that I91-1m ost likely, "if it could be made, it could be sold." One of the problems that the company would face in trying to sell the fuel is its high price tag, which is due to production costs and feedstock costs, or costs of the materials needed for production, according to Mann.
But much more research needs to be done before these issues are decided. Simplot will continue to follow the research on biodiesel, while the University of Idaho tries to work out the problems. Mann said the major problem the researchers now face involves the differences between raw vegetable oil and waste vegetable oil. He said that the oil used in the production of french fries is chemically modified in its raw state in order to raise its melting point, thus improving its ability to cook french fries. At the same time, this chemical modification also raises the oil's cloud point, the temperature at which solids begin to form. This poses a problem when used in biodiesel, because the fuel has to be kept at a certain temperature to prevent it from crystallizing. If the fuel has a high cloud point, it will crystallize at low temperatures during the winter. Researchers are now trying to lower the cloud point of the biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil.
If Simplot markets biodiesel, the company would focus on the environmental benefits of the fuel, marketing it for use by trucks, buses, and heavy machinery in environmentally sensitive or smog-prone areas. The success of biodiesel would depend on whether potential consumers believe the environmental benefits outweigh the costs. New air quality regulations and national mandates are being introduced that urge government and industry to begin using alternative fuels. Such regulations could raise interest in biodiesel. Because of the high price, however, biodiesel would probably not be sold at the corner pump, Mann said. Simplot will await the outcomes of this research before making any decisions about investment. "We're not going to jump in with both feet tomorrow," Mann said. "But it could be an opportunity in the future because we do have two of the major ingredients." The Waning War on Cancer The ongoing war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971, needs to be revitalized or it will be lost, says a subcommittee of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Unless changes are made in the current strategy, cancer will become the nation's top killer in just five years, the subcommittee says.
The subcommittee to evaluate the National Cancer Program (NCP) prepared a report at the request of Congress members, who wanted to know why cancer is still on the rise, despite spending more than $23 billion on cancer research since 1971. The report outlined a strategy to renew the war and recommend direction for the NCP. "We have a schizophrenic system," said Paul Calabresi, chair of the National Cancer Advisory Board. "New direction is urgently needed." The subcommittee identified several problems with current efforts to fight cancer. One problem is that despite the progress that has been made in cancer research, many researchers do not have the money to convert their breakthroughs in the lab into treatment. Also, the subcommittee said that half of all cancer patients could be cured if their tumors were discovered early enough, but 38 million uninsured Americans do not get routine cancer tests.
The major changes that the subcommittee recommends for the program include the establishment of a cabinet-level cancer director, universal access to cancer treatment, sufficient financing for cancer research, and an end to government support of tobacco, which the National Cancer Institute says causes one-third of all cancer deaths.
In the report, "Cancer at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress for the Nation," the subcommittee recommended that three major goals be pursued in fighting cancer: applying current knowledge about cancer prevention and care to all people; increasing support for translational research that develops basic cancer knowledge into preventive strategies, new technologies, and effective treatments; and increasing support for basic cancer research to maintain excellence and accelerate progress.
To reach these goals, the subcommittee said that six major issues must be addressed. The report identifies each of the issues and advises Congress how to address each one. First, the subcommittee points out that current health care reform proposals are devastating to the war on cancer because they deny resources for research and quality cancer care. To address this issue, the report says, Congress should include universal access to cancer care coverage in any health care reform plan that includes quality preventive, diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitative services, including services provided in qualified clinical trials.
Second, the report says, the NCP suffers from an absence of coordination of cancerfighting efforts in the public, private, and voluntary sectors. The 1971 National Cancer Act that established the NCP also mandated that the director of the National Cancer Institute develop a coordinated cancer research program encompassing the NCI programs, related programs of other research institutes, and other federal and nonfederal programs. But several years later, the responsibility for federal and nonfederal programs was taken from the NCI director and given to the general authorities of all national research institutes. The subcommittee feels that the scope of the NCP includes all nonresearch, nongovernmental, and community constituents who have an impact on cancer. The subcommittee recommends that Congress reestablish the 1971 legislative authority for coordinating the NCP and implement coordination of research and cancer care activities throughout the public, private, and voluntary sectors.
The third issue that the subcommittee points out is that many people currently receive inadequate cancer care, especially the poor, elderly, and uninsured. The subcommittee advises Congress to stabilize and strengthen the research infrastructure and cancer care delivery system, including NCIdesignated cancer centers, community clinical oncology programs, and clinical trials cooperative groups.
Fourth, the report says that current laws, public policy, and governmental regulation undermine cancer prevention, treatment, and control efforts. Among such regulations are those regarding clinical trial design, the approval process for additional uses of established cancer therapies, and excessive documentation requirements, all of which discourage industry from undertaking anticancer drug and technology development. Also, the subcommittee says there is a lack of appreciation of the potential hazards of environmental and food source contaminants and that laws, policies, and regulations protecting and promoting tobacco use worsen the cancer problem and drive up health care costs. The subcommittee advises Congress to change such policies and industry practices.
The fifth issue that the subcommittee says warrants attention is that a failure to support translational research, which converts research findings into cancer care products and services, hinders the development of cancer-fighting advances. The subcommittee advises Congress to strengthen essential mechanisms, funding, and other support for translational research.
Finally, the subcommittee identifies current investment as insufficient to capitalize on unprecedented opportunities in basic science research. These opportunities have become available as a result of an ongoing revolution in molecular and cellular biology and offer the possibility to lead to a better understanding of the process of cancer development. In addition, the subcommittee says that inadequate resources now jeopardize continued basic science discoveries. The subcommittee advises Congress to intensify support for basic research to identify the mechanisms of cancer onset and spread, which are the foundation for future cancer preventive and therapeutic advances.