Safety concerns, industry changes push U.S. to rethink approach to food inspection Every day, inspectors in white hats and coats take up positions at every one of the nation's slaughterhouses, eyeballing the hanging carcasses of cows and chickens as they shuttle past on elevated rails, looking for bruises, tumors and signs of contamination. It's essentially the way U.S. Department of Agriculture food safety inspectors have done their jobs for a century, ever since Upton Sinclair's blockbuster novel, "The Jungle," exposed horrid conditions in a Chicago meatpacking facility and shook Americans awake to the hazards of tainted food. But these days, the bulk of what Americans eat - seafood, vegetables, fruit, dairy products, shelled eggs and almost everything except meat and poultry - is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. And the FDA inspects the plants it oversees on average about once a decade. These radically different approaches are a legacy from a time when animal products were thought to be inherently risky and other food products safe. But in the past few years, the high-profile and deadly outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to spinach, peanuts and cantaloupe have put the lie to that assumption. The FDA's approach is partly by necessity: The agency lacks the money to marshal more inspectors. But it also reflects a different philosophy about how to address threats to the nation's food supply: An approach based on where the risk is greatest. The agency concentrates its limited inspections on food products that have the worst track record on safety - seafood, for example - and on companies with a history of problems. It puts most of its efforts into responding to outbreaks after the fact, using genetic fingerprinting and other scientific tools to track contaminants back to their source in hopes of stopping any further spread. The USDA and the FDA are under pressure to overhaul their dramatically different procedures, in essence bringing them closer together. There's a growing recognition among food-safety experts that the government can be smarter about tackling food-borne hazards that sicken one in six Americans each year and kill about 3,000. "We have two extremes in the inspection programs," said Michael Doyle, a nationally known microbiologist who directs the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. Neither system is working very well. They both need to be updated and upgraded. At the USDA, tight federal budgets and scientific advances over the past century make the case for new ways to manage risk, one that relies less on basic observation by an army of inspectors. But bureaucratic politics and union power have blunted these initiatives. The FDA, meanwhile, was directed by Congress a year ago to shift more of its emphasis to preventing outbreaks rather than responding to them. Under a new law, the agency must increase the frequency of inspection while food companies are required to test consistently for potential hazards. But the agency has struggled to cover even part of the cost of inspections and ensure that companies meet the new requirements.