FDA Continuing Talks About Shifting Food Inspection to States

The Food and Drug Administration is developing a plan to shift more food safety inspection responsibility to state agencies over the course of five years, according to two sources familiar with ongoing talks. But ensuring states receive adequate funds to support the move is uncertain.

The White House’s initial budget request suggested moving FDA inspection to state and local governments. While the idea has been discussed for years, a formal plan is now taking shape.

States conduct some routine inspection at food facilities through cooperative agreements with FDA. They include about 50% of food manufacturer inspections, 70% of animal food inspections and 90% of produce inspections. State and local partners oversee restaurants and groceries.

States can often conduct these inspections at a lower cost than FDA inspectors. But some states have stronger or more developed programs than others. 

FDA has suggested transitioning inspection to states over a five-year period, likely with a pilot phase-in approach in a couple of states. While details are not final, Steve Mandernach, executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, said pilots will likely consist of a small number of states that already handle more inspections than FDA. 

“Those are probably the likely targets, because they’re already doing almost all of the work anyway and it’s really just transitioning how the work is done,” Mandernach said. 

Routine surveillance, inspection and sampling would move to states as part of the plan. FDA would still be responsible for the highest-risk facility inspection like infant formula or medical food manufacturers. Federal inspectors would also be responsible for inspections tied to outbreaks or if there are continuous noncompliance issues with a facility. 

FDA also would retain authority over food imports inspection. 

Roberta Wagner, senior vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association, suggested modeling the divide between states and FDA after the Grade A dairy program. In this system, states inspect facilities, but FDA is responsible for training state staff and conducting audits. 

There are some issues the FDA plans to iron out first, like facility inventories and data sharing, Wagner said. 

As the plan solidifies, Wagner said it’s important to industry that state inspectors are well trained and have the proper resources. 

“We need to make sure, ultimately, that there’s consistent inspections across state lines,” Wagner said. “It really isn’t fair to industry who usually has facilities in multiple states if you have inspectorates that are really approaching inspections in a very different way.”

While FDA is having conversations with industry groups and key stakeholders, there has not been a public plan. A key part is whether FDA can get funds for the transition.

House and Senate Appropriations committees have advanced funding proposals for USDA and FDA in fiscal year 2026. Each includes report language designating funds to state and local food inspection. The House proposal offers $117 million, the Senate $116 million. 

These figures are an increase from previous years but would in practice maintain funding levels. For the last several years, states were budgeted to receive about $83 million a year but came to rely on an additional $34 million in carryover funds annually. 

Beginning last year, FDA warned states should anticipate carryover funds would no longer be available. As a result, state agriculture departments were warned earlier this year of cuts to produce safety, rapid response and manufactured food inspection programs. 

While Congress designating $117 million returns them to normal funding levels, it would likely not be enough to support a full transition of inspection to the states. There also can’t be fluctuations in future funding bills, Wagner said. 

Traditionally, FDA has been responsible for providing money to states. But given recent challenges, state food safety groups have been pushing Congress to maintain a designated line item in appropriations bills. 

“They need a designated line item that can’t be touched or decreased in some way … if this really is going to come to fruition,” Wagner said. 

If FDA pursues a phased-in approach with pilot states, the level of funding included in recent appropriations bills should be sufficient. But stakeholders and the agency realize more funding will be needed down the line, Mandernach said. 

Cuts to funding are already having an immediate impact on states, which could cause problems. 

Some states are moving inspectors funded through the cooperative agreements into vacancies in other areas or laying off employees, Mandernach said. Such states would need to train new inspectors when funding is available.

“That’s the giant challenge we keep facing here, and it really affects productivity overall,” Mandernach said. “And it doesn’t let them get that experience to really become an expert at what they’re doing.” 

From his conversations with FDA and the administration, Mandernach said there appears to be awareness of these funding challenges and they appear eager to find solutions. He added leaders at FDA and its Human Foods Program seem committed to supporting state food safety programs, noting a recent social media post by FDA Commissioner Martin Makary. 

“95% of FDA produce inspections are conducted by our state partners. The Biden admin cut that funding by over $33 million last year. Under my watch we are fully restoring this funding,” Makary wrote in the Memorial Day weekend post. 

This article was originally published by Agri-Pulse. Agri-Pulse is a trusted source in Washington, D.C., with the largest editorial team focused on food and farm policy coverage.