Latest News

The proposed rules represent a sea change in the way the agency polices food, a process that currently involves swinging into action after food contamination has been identified.

"These new rules really set the basic framework for a modern, science-based approach to food safety and shifts us from a strategy of reacting to problems to a strategy for preventing problems," Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the F.D.A., said in an interview.

The F.D.A. is responsible for the safety of about 80 percent of the food that the nation consumes. The remainder of the burden falls to the Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for meat, poultry and some eggs. One in six Americans becomes ill from eating contaminated food each year, the government estimates; of those, roughly 130,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 ultimately die.

Congress passed the groundbreaking Food Safety Modernization Act in 2010 after a wave of incidents involving tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands of people and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.

But it took the Obama administration two years to move the rules through the F.D.A., prompting accusations by advocates that the White House was more concerned about protecting itself from Republican criticism than about public safety.

Mr. Taylor said, however, that the delay was a function of the wide variety of foods that the rules had to encompass and the complexity of the food system. "Anything that is important and complicated will always take longer than you would like," he said.

The first rule would require manufacturers of processed foods sold in the United States to identify, adopt and carry out measures to reduce the risk of contamination. Food companies also would be required to have a plan for correcting any problems that might arise and for keeping records that F.D.A. inspectors could use for audit purposes.

One such preventive measure might be the roasting of raw peanuts at a temperature guaranteed to kill salmonella bacteria, which has been a problem in nut butters in recent years. Roasted nuts might then be sequestered from incoming raw nuts to further reduce the risk of contamination, said Sandra B. Eskin, director of the safe food campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

"This is very good news for consumers," Ms. Eskin said. "We applaud the administration's action, which demonstrates its strong commitment to making our food safer."

The second rule would apply to the harvesting and production of fruits and vegetables in an effort to combat the bacterial contamination that has arisen over the last decade. It would address what advocates refer to as the "four Ws" — water, waste, workers and wildlife.

A farm or plant where vegetables are packaged might, for example, add lavatories to ensure that workers do not urinate in fields and post signs similar to those in restaurants that remind employees to wash their hands.

While such precautions may seem obvious and some food producers and makers may already be taking them, there has not previously been any legal requirement that they even consider doing so.

"There are a lot of common-sense, practical things that work to reduce risk of contamination," Mr. Taylor said. "We're not going to relinquish all risk of contamination, but these steps will make us think more about what we can do to reduce it."

There will be a 120-day period for public comment before the new rules go into effect.

Additional rules are pending, including one that would cover importers' responsibilities to verify the safety of food products grown or made overseas. About 15 percent of food eaten by Americans is imported, although an even higher percentage of produce comes from abroad.

New rules also are needed for animal feed, which Mr. Taylor said would be similar to those for human food.

"We're hoping to get them done very soon," he said.