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.
Somebody, please tell me how it is getting the FDA functional is so hard? Honest to god - these are suppose to be smart guys! Is there some kind of physical law in nature that disallows a functioning system? Like the Peter Principle or something? I'm thinking the real struggle in congressmen (no capital intentional) is the conflict between doing the right thing for the Citizens (capital intentional) of the US and feathering their own bed. I run my own household - it's just not that hard..........
Please, someone help me understand these guys!
You make a good point in your first sentence.... uneducated AND uninformed..... and while we are at it, we might as well add- unsupervised. We need to create jobs in this country - so let's create jobs where they count- keeping us healthy. I'd like to see the workers incentivized rather than perpetuate a system where we tolerate a poor quality workforce and very rich taskmasters.
Food safety regulation is all about risk reduction. You cannot reduce risk without incurring costs. It can be likened to buying insurance. The difficulty is that each incremental improvement in safety comes at a higher cost. As the risk approaches zero the cost approaches infinity. It may sound crass, but has anyone determined the cost per life saved under this new bill? Once the cost is determined, it is possible to look for alternative spending that might save more lives at a lower cost. Traffic safety comes to mind. Basing regulation on emotion is not an effective way to govern.
No regulations are based on facts and FDA already has the power to effectively recall foods by publicly announcing a product has been found to be contaminated. The FDA already has the power to confiscate “misbranded” products, too, and it could easily use this power to halt the sale of contaminated food items.
But the FDA simply refuses to enforce the laws already on the books and, instead, has sought to expand its power by hyping up the e.coli food scares. The ploy apparently worked: Now in a reaction to the food scare-mongering, the FDA is being handed not just new powers, but more funding, too! And you can bet it will find creative new ways to put this power to work suppressing the health freedoms and food freedoms of the American people.
I was wondering why Diane was on their side:
"For years my alarm has been set to National Public Radio (NPR) so I can lie in bed for five minutes and have a grasp on the day's news before I even get up. I, like many other Americans, rely on NPR for news that is what I deem to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this morning my ears burned as I listened to an NPR advertisement on Marketplace sponsored by Monsanto, the world's largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touting how its genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. It left me wondering, particularly in tough economic times, how do media ethics hold up? (The GMO seed giant has been bombarding liberal-minded publications with similar propoganda, see image to the right, for months.)
National Public Radio prides itself on a mission to create a "more informed public" through the production, acquisition, and distribution of "programming that meets the highest standards of public service in journalism." NPR is particular about its principles and proudly displays them on their website: "Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest." But as I lay in bed this morning listening to the Monsanto advertisement I wondered, does NPR hold their advertisers to the same principles?
If NPR really prides themselves on coverage that is "fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest" shouldn't they hold their partners and advertisers to the same standard? If the most complete and honest news is sponsored by corporations with false and misleading advertisements what kind of message is NPR sending? In tough economic times we are all faced with difficult decisions about the way we live our lives and how we can make our money. I encourage NPR and all other news media services to think about their principles, ethics and mission statements and consider applying these principles to the ads they are running."
What the legislation fails to address is the risk inherent in the large scale agriculture. In this legislation, industry defines risk based on the industry; one panelist today said, "one producer brought down the spinach market. One producer brought down the peanut market. One producer brought down the jalapeño industry. They industry is behind this legislation because they are sick of it." Then, never again does the conversation frame risk in this light; industry risk. We hear about risk to the consumer the rest of the time! "Saving lives," and so forth. That’s enough not to trust the law. When addressing a system is is best to put some boundaries on that system!
"Science is needed" was the battle cry of one panelist today, and "scalable solutions". I wonder about his biases, since scale is the problem, which we are acutely aware of because of the tracing problem! Systems thinking is what is needed here and adaptive solutions not technical fixes. That is a science also. (I hate it one one side of an argument thinks their science is "the science".)
Some one made a joke on air that we would have to label the mileage on a head of lettuce to deal with the risk exposure problem. Well, yeah! If that is what takes to manage the risk, than we do it!! My farmers market only deals in local farms. CSAs, and small farms should not have to deal with "scalable" solutions. The local foods movement should be clearly supported in this legislation and it is not. (I did read it.)
This issue is not just about food security it is about economics, micro versus macro and we need the micro to adapt to the economy the high priests of capitalism have run into the ground! This issue is also about democracy. When a people loose sovereignty over their food, they loose political independence too!
Reading this bill this week, the most threatening piece was how often it says, “within one year, something in it will be defined by the FDA.” This is absolutely poorly written law! That said, I like the law where it is clear. For example it is clear about imports, but could the FDA and HLS define planting non-gmo foods in my own yard an import. Yes it could. There is nothing in this legislation about farming, all the language is industrial.
Safety is good but this is tyranny.
I like what you said and the way you said it. Thanks for contributing.