An estimated one in four Americans gets sick from tainted food every year and 5,000 die. Understanding the proposed overhaul of FDA food safety regulations and what it could mean for farmers, food prices and the agency's powers.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
18 |
|
|
20
|
21
|
|
|
24 |
25 |
|
26
|
27
|
28 |
|
|
31 |
|
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I fear these regs will shut down small farms, our only real alternative to create food safety and benefit industrial agriculture. Can you show me how these regs protect small local food?
How do these regs address the problems caused by industrial agriculture? They do not change the system that creates bad food
Food Safety should be addressed in conjunction with an overhaul of USDA agriculture policies so more food is purchased from local farmers. USDA is a vital partner in dealing with food safety and could solve many problems by encouraging local food production. One way to do that is to increase the reimbursement for school lunch, breakfast, and after school programs so schools can buy locally instead of processed food that must be shipped hundreds of miles.
I'm not positive about the amendment but wholesalers have different regulations, regardless of the size of the business, than businesses selling food direct to customers (I have a small bakery in which I do both wholesale and direct sales and this is the case for me). Therefore a small spinach growing farm in mexico (or wherever) that is wholesaling spinach to a big packer would still have to follow the stricter regulations.
For me, the key question is what percentage of food safety problems originate from small farms?
Why is big ag against exemptions for small farms? Because they see an opportunity to shut down competitors. It's absolutely true that many of us prefer the produce of small, local growers to those of the agricultural conglomerates. It's also true that the paperwork burden is far too great for a small, family farm to be able to comply. If those small farmers are shut down due to a lack of compliance, we'll have no choice but to purchase big ag's produce.
The food industry is a labor intensive industry. And the labor is very low paid and uneducated. Trying to regulate food safety when the workforce has little if any understanding of the basic science rationale behind the regulations has little chance of success. Until America agrees to pay more for food so that food producers and processors can integrate better educated workers into the system, the risk associated with food will remain. The very small, local grower is the food production labor and as a rule they have more understanding of the science behind food production. The transition towards local food production and processing could, by itself, could make food safer.
I haven't heard one of the most important aspects of food safety raised: traceability. There is a fundamental difference between mass produced food stuffs shipped across the country and the local seller I buy from directly. In the case of that small spinach farm that stopped the entire industry, it was because of the difficulty in tracing the origins of the tainted food. The industry is working to implement end to end traceability, but this is simply an unnecessary burden on the local producer/seller. I know exactly who produced the tomatoes I bought at the local farmers market because I purchased the items directly from the grower. There is immediate traceability in that case.
Doug,
Cincinnati, OH
Speaking of imports... 2 things -1) I worry about produce from countries that still use DDT, etc. Is there a way to know which countries these are? (A good argument to buy local & organic).
AND 2) There is so much candy, cookies and breads in the stores (especially right now) that are imported. How much is inspected? I worry about foods from other countries that have really bad regulatory laws... lead, bad food coloring... could your guest please comment.
Thank you!
I agree greater regulation is needed among the larger firms who produce food for the nation. From the descriptions given of the egg company involved in the case this summer and the peanut company, it sounds as though some of the food companies are headed back towards "The Jungle".
However, I also feel consumers need to be more informed and active in what they eat. One example being: I never buy fish from China. I have read too many news articles about the contamination of water in China and will not buy any food items coming from there.
Question? How many of the 75,000,000 food poisoning cases are caused by bad products as opposed to improper handling at the time of preparation?
Martin
I agree that food safety is an important issue that needs to be addressed, especially at the industrial food level in this country.
However, the current proposal will certainly put small, local farms out of business because they will simply not be able - as they struggle to survive as it is - to fund the infrastructure that would be required by regulations scaled to the industrial food level.
There is another point that is being entirely left out of the discussion and that is this: The entire discussion is focused on how we can fix this serious issue of food safety in our current system. Where is the discussion about WHY there are increasing food safety problems with the current system. What is it about the current system that leads to such problems? What can we do about that - the source, not the symptoms.
One reason I brought the previous comment up is I worry that poor people buy a lot of food items that are cheap imports, or cheap candy items for Christmas. I notice cheap foods being bought for our food banks, also.
I am extremely concerned about the amendment which removed the requirement that the FDA needed "credible evidence" to initiate a recall; the amendment instead reads that the FDA needs simply "reason to believe". What is the justification for this amendment? It sounds like a very dangerous loophole which further undermines the role of scientific evidence in food regulations.
Please ask your guest who lauded Nestle earlier why he thinks it's a good idea to allow the industry to police themselves. How could it not be a conflict of interest to let one company( a larger one) investigate a smaller one and wield the power to shut them down? To assert they don't have a vested interest would be laughably absurd.
Chris Kennett via The Diane Rehm Show: Chris Kennett
I work on the front lines in the Microbiology Lab of a small rural hospital, testing the patient specimens who become infected with food-borne illnesses and have seen the effects on the patients. I find it difficult to find information on recalled food and the area's the product has been distributed to. Has any thought been put into instituting regulations increaseing notification of area's of possible expossure, such as through TV/Radio/Internet, like with severe weather or school closing, so there is more of an opportunity that individuals can document the product label, lot number and expiration dates?
Also, has there been discussion of forming a separate agency for screening for food-borne illnesses and food imported into our country, that could work hand and hand with the CDC and State Health Institutions, freeing the FDA of this overwhelming job.
Thank you
Chris
I was reluctant to step into work as I listened to every word of the introduction of the current discussion. However, I noticed some misinformation and/or left out information given about the origin of HACCP, which was stated to be "invented" by the food industry (if I am not mistaken). In fact, HACCP was developed by Pilsbury Corp with NASA (a government agency) to procure safety of foods and preparation practices. Interesting that the panelist that failed to mention this seemed to be against government regulation revision of current food safety standards. Great discussion! Thanks Diane!
I want to make a comment regarding the last caller and his assertion about Monsanto. It's very easy to be deceived by extremist pundits on both sides who play with facts like play-dough. Monsanto is probably one of the most dangerous corporations on our fair planet. But unless we approach this subject with a level head and straight facts, our movement to keep our food supply free of genetic tampering will never be taken seriously. Jackson could never have envisioned something like Monsanto.
I had to turn off my radio and come to the computer because the FDA seems to be in a parallel universe. Pasteurization and irradiation is what they are proud of and pushing for? Those two methods are only necessary when filthy farm conditions are present! They destroy the high nutrient content of foods and we're not even talking about the quality of foods, that organic is highly superior to conventional produce. That's a whole other topic. (And that many lactose-intolerant people become lactose-tolerant when they drink raw milk--that's another hot topic). The FDA has become too large already and should be sized down--and we need legislation that exempts all small farms. Why? It's the people that buy from farms that will keep them in business or not. I know my farmers and how they run their operations. Clean and ethical and careful and they know their cows by name. Until CAFOs are a thing of the past and the FDA starts promoting whole foods from permaculture, we cannot make real progress. The future of our nation and its health is all linked to fresh organic produce and supporting small farmers. To give pharmaceuticals to people having eaten tainted foods (spinach tainted from runoff from (unbelievably legal) CAFOs upstream, for instance) is a really unsustainable situation and totally unhealthy. We need to take profiteering out of drugs and our food system. The big guns (industrial food, industrial medicine, chemical companies and their friends at the FDA) are feeling threatened by America's interest in small farms and they should adjust to what the people want, not fight the people. It truly is Farmageddon.
Good point above, Annie. The theme of our government seems to be addressing symptoms. Because most of the time the cause is writing their paychecks. This is also relevant to VermontGirls concerns.
Today show was poorly prepared. The staff should have further investigated the relations between the food industry and the government agencies in charge of regulate them. A simple Wikipedia search would have been enough to initiate the research.
According to Wikipedia:
Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Supreme Court. These include Clarence Thomas, Michael R. Taylor, Ann Veneman, Linda Fisher, Michael Friedman, William D. Ruckelshaus, and Mickey Kantor.[24] Linda Fisher has been back and forth between positions at Monsanto and the EPA.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
The guest correctly pointed out that one of the caller was wrong when he identified the head of the FDA as a former Monsanto employee, but he was also wrong when he said that Michael Taylor only worked for Monsanto for one and half year. Taylor's relationship with Monsanto was not limited to his time as Vice President for Public Policy. While working at King & Spalding, a law firm representing the biotechnology company Monsanto, he established and led the firm's "food and drug law" practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/view/lies-and-deception-how-t...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18866.cfm
Everybody knows that regardless who is in charge Washington big corporations are in control. However, bringing this point in the show would have create a balance in this terrible one sided discussion.
I find it very disturbing that you and other NPR hosts now regularly talk over, interrupt and even disconnect callers whose views you find to be too far left for your taste. The last caller may have been incorrect about the exact position held by the former Monsanto lobbyist, but he was certainly correct in his concern. Monsanto, a regular contributor to NPR, is a very negative, I would not hesitate to say, evil corporation. Anyone familiar with the facts knows this to be true. This bill is a blatant attempt to eliminate competition, a tactic Monsanto has used regularly in the past. NPR has gone from being a part of the solution to being a part of the problem. National Petroleum Radio.
i think the new FDA laws are a terrific idea. if mom and pop organizations are as honest as claimed they will have little trouble adjusting.
Charging mass producers, and especially foreign/imported dealers a 1500 dollar fee, at the very least, to be registered, would be good. the revenue would be a source of income to be used to advance Technology. and to utilize a central source of advanced technology. Technology has outpaced laws exponentially. our government should have the cutting edge tedhnology.. Centralized tracking alone will save lives and prevent future injury or death. I got sick 3 times last year (from food bank products, not commercial sources I will admit).
this is no joke and we cannot trust anyone to follow the rules on their own when profit is their only motive.This is not even considering what a terrorist organization could to to imported products, or all the ethics and regulation of genetically altered food? Who is going to make sure my glowing tomatoes from Japan are safe? That was a joke, but i think the proposed rules are very important, and much needed.
Callers are not usually experts but concerned listeners. Do you expect them to do the research your producers have neglected?
I think what happens is that industry paid "experts" demand a show on behalf of their clients and that you give it to them. It would be better to let them be on alone and save the rebuttal by critics for another day than to set up a game in which they always win. And also, how about a show by the critics without the distraction of paid experts. Maybe NPR underwriting gets in the way, huh?
I trust the farmer down the road because he lives in the community, not the anonymous corporatist. My God, are they gonna come in my backyard and deny me to grow tomatoes and squash just so's Monsanto is assured profits? Corporate control of government regulation is like a mound of chicken manure 10 feet high blocking the exit. Executives of big producers should be on C-span every morning eating their own bacon and eggs.
So why dont they pay the FDA regulators base salary and then pay them bonuses based on how many fines they levy against the producers for issues they find at the production facilities and have them verified with photos and a managers review. Why should we fine all of the industry the same regardless of whether they are a good facility or not. We should be punishing those who are laxidazical in keeping their product clean and rewarding those who already do a good job at maintaining the quality of their goods. This would fund the FDA to do their job only as much as it is needed. If the industry is cleaner, then the agency will shrink and as they are needed more they would grow.
We get almost all our food from local farmers markets. If I buy lettuce from Sleeping Frog Farms on Sunday and I get sick on Tuesday, I can go back to CJ and Adam and complain. If they don't respond satisfactorily, I will buy from 50-mile Farm.
Problem solved.
From the discussion, it seems that the large producers are determined to shut down their small-scale, local competition. Otherwise, why switch from support to total opposition, if there is a provision that exempts small farms that only sell locally.
Thanks for really investigating this important issue. I'm so excited that your choice of experts such as Richard Wiliams who understands the facts.
Let's hope you will be able to follow this in the insuing weeks. I and my friends hope/pray that the Tester Amendament be included in the final draft. I think United Fresh Produce is a front for Monsanto, and Agri Business and their goal is to fully monopolize the food industry.
So obviously I feel we need to be able to have an exception for local orgainc farmers.
FDA should focus on regulating foreign imports and leave the small organic farmers out of
this expensive new regulations.
Thanks for your show it's wonderful,
Leslee
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
4. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.
fantastic thank you fro speaking up for our food freedom
S 510 deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated. I am surprised that Diane had nobody on the show that told the truth and wasn't paid off by the big Agra we already have rules that we just need to enforce
Rarely have I ever felt a Dian Rehm show so extremely one-sided, particularly with regards to the Tester amendment. It certainly wouldn't have been difficult to include a voice from the local food movement/small agriculture community as one of the "experts," rather than solely providing a one-sided, industrial agriculture viewpoint from both the farmer and consumer sides. Even if no one on the caliber of Joel Salatin, Michael Pollan or Elliot Coleman was available, there are countless organizations who could have provided a spokesperson.
Contrary to the guests' repeated assertions, the different production and distribution methods used by small farms are far safer than the industrial farming and wholesale conglomerating methods used by big agriculture. And there is a far greater impetus to be safer: I know nearly all of my customers by name, most have been to my farm, many are friends, and if I provide an unsafe food product, I will not survive because the whole of my customer base will know nearly immediately.
If there is anything wrong with the Tester amendment, it is that it defines "small" as too large. If a farm makes $500k a year, it isn't small by the standards of most of the folks I interact with, and big enough that it could have trouble producing food safely.
A farm growing 50 acres of spinach is not small. We grew 180 square feet of spinach this year, amid a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. That is small. It is small growers with small customer bases who provide the entrepreneurial impetus to provide healthier, safer food. Without the Tester amendment, this regulation would absolutely destroy that independent, entrepreneurial spirit that is necessary for a resilient, safe, and healthy food system, while further protecting the comparatively unprofitable, ecologically damaging, fragile, dangerous, and nutritionally inferior industrial food model.