Delays In New Food Safety Regulations
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-22/delays-new-food-safety-regulations
Over the past year, more than two dozen people in the U.S. have died and hundreds have fallen ill after eating contaminated cantaloupes. Early in 2011, President Barack Obama signed a food safety bill aimed at preventing these kinds of deaths and illnesses. The legislation is considered the biggest overhaul to food safety in decades, yet many months later, the rules are still being hammered out and the law has not taken effect. The delay has both consumer advocates and industry groups concerned and pushing for faster implementation. Diane and her guests discuss the holdup over new food safety rules.
Guests
Erik Olson
director of food programs at Pew Health Group.
Richard Williams
director of policy research at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Previously, he worked for 27 years at the Food and Drug Administration.
Bill Marler
lawyer at Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm.
Bill Tomson
reporter for Dow Jones Newswire.
Ray Gilmer
senior vice president of communications for United Fresh Produce Association.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Diane,
If you are going to be discussing cantaloupe food safety, why are you not engaging melon farmers.
As a California melon grower, I would like to hear all sides of the story.
Thanks, Milas III
Diane,
I'm a lawyer who works in the food safety regulation area. I have three questions about OMB's role in the delay that I hope your guests might address.
Statutory deadlines represent a determination by Congress that uncertainty and delay have economic and public safety consequences. Why does a small agency within the White House (OMB) get to ignore that Congressional determination?
Is this delay just election-year politics? The Republicans have accused the President of over-regulation and the President is holding up major regulations like the food safety rules to keep from adding fuel to that fire. What are the political advantages and disadvantages of delaying food safety rules?
Does this delay mean that -- in effect -- the economists at OMB operating with very little transparency have authority that supersedes Congressional direction, the expertise at the Food and Drug Administration and the President’s signature on a new law? Why should economists rather than public health experts have the last say on the new food safety rules?
As the mother of foodborne illness victim, I am disappointed in the delay in the FDA rule making process. Six years ago today, my daughter ate spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. She developed HUS as a result and spent more than 3 weeks in the ICU. Three months ago she was diagnosed with diabetes which is linked to the damage to her pancreas from the E. coli infection. Preventative measures are the only way to stop these large scale outbreaks and the Obama administration needs to make public health a priority.
That's why I eat local. If there is a recall--which are rare, they are reported immediately, and the problem is solved before the food is back up for sale. In addition many of these foods that are up for recall may be in close proximity to a factory farm with animals--in which the runoff from the farms get into the groundwater, of which the plants take in. It's a nasty chain reaction in terms of our food supply.
In addition, eating local reduces the carbon footprint. If you purchase meat, many farmers will allow access to the farm and processing facilities--so you can see how the animals are cared for and processed. Many local farmers also raise meat and produce without chemicals, hormones, pesticides, and antibiotics.
In terms of food safety, I've heard of a law called "Kevin's Law"--of which gives the USDA authority to close down facilities that are not clean and shows signs of eColi and salmonella. However, it wasn't passed, and the trade organizations have fought back in court--of which ruled in their favor.
Oftentimes, you have to wonder if the best thing to do is to grow and raise your own food.
As long as Big Ag and companies like Monsanto continue to buy and sell our elected officials, then the issue of food safety will not be resolved.
Michael Taylor--who now runs the FDA, was once a big time lawyer for Monsanto. Many of the people in the USDA and FDA were once worked for Big Ag and Monsanto. With that, they are standing with such companies in terms of blocking regulation as opposed to upholding it for the safety and welfare of the American people.
"eating local" can't feed billions! since were talking about farming which involves soil, which is dirt, as dumb as dirt comes to mind.
The FDA budget for 2012 was $3.8B, and they have requested $4.5B for 2013. Your guests have stated that FDA has a 'meager' budget. How much would be what they believe would be an acceptable budget to perform their regulatory tasks?
Thank you.
I've seen your posts, and you appear to be very conservative.
This is about PERSONABLE RESPONSIBILITY in that in order to have safe food, either find a local source or better yet...grow your own.
What impact does the local food movement have on food contamination? Is it truly safer?
Does washing fruit and vegetables prior to ingestion reduce the liklihood of bacterial illness?
I grew up eating squirrels and rabbits and the safety inspector was my mother.
Ask your guests why they think the agencies invited declined to attend the discussion this morning?
Most of the reports on food contamination are from huge farms that supply food throughout the country. This is a rare instance with local food--as you can go to a local farm, ask the farmer questions, tour the facilities and see how the food is produced.
And no, washing fruits and vegetables prior to ingestion does not reduce the likelihood of bacterial illness. I'm sure that the people who have either gotten sick or died from eating contaminated spinach have washed it, but it was to no avail. Chances are that the runoff from factory farms raising animals for meat gets into the groundwater and into the spinach, and no amount of washing will get rid of eColi or salmonella. There are also fruits and vegetables called "the dirty dozen"--of which are laden with pesticides and no amount of washing will get rid of because it's in the produces. A couple of examples of the "dirty dozen" include strawberries and peaches.
Hi Diane,
I hope that your guests address the other food safety and labeling regulations that are also sitting on the desk at the FDA.
Last year, only after significant pressure from gluten-free consumers -- in the form of building the World's Tallest Gluten-Free Cake in Washington DC and accumulating over 10,000 petition signatures in 3 short months -- did the FDA finally address the need for gluten-free food labeling regulations.
Congress had mandated that the FDA issue these regulations by 2007 but no action was taken until gluten-free consumers were able to bring public attention to the FDA's failure to act. Three months after we built the cake and met with the FDA at our Gluten-Free Labeling Summit, the FDA finally did issue proposed regulations and is slated to issue the final regulations by Q4 of this year.
Food labeling is food safety. It is completely unacceptable for American consumers to have to be sickened by unsafe or improperly labeled foods in order for the FDA to be forced to take action. Public pressure seems to be the only way to get the FDA to act on these serious public health issues.
~jules shepard
@JulesGlutenFree
1in133.org
Because they're guilty of negligence in monitoring these big farms. They've been bought and sold, and I believe they fear being exposed.
One of your guest just perpetuated a bit of misinformation. Raw unpasteurized milk was not a problem until the distilleries decided to - in an effort to profit from the mash normally thrown away - go into the milk business. When cows are fed grains and corn instead of nature's intended grass they develop mastitis and the Swill Milk Epidemic in the mid to late 1800's killed more than 1100 babies, children and adults. Prior to the distilleries going into the dairy business we as a civilization thrived on raw unpasteurized milk. Had the distilleries not had so much money to lobby politicians they would have been demanded to STOP producing milk and killing people. People need to stop passing this misinformation along once an for all. - Carl Lanore
A big challenge for produce growers is pathogen contamination for m the environment. The pathogens are called “zoonoses” because the sources are originally animals.
A paper out of Texas Tech last November illustrated the intensity of spinach contamination compared to the nearness to a feed lot. These pathogen are carried by wind, water, and other animals such as birds, rodents, and insects.
The preharvest environment is unregulated for human pathogens but heavily regulated for animal and plant pathogens. The USDA Agency with that preharvest jurisdiction is APHIS (Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service). While they are interested in human pathogens, the argument is Congress only gives them jurisdiction over animal and plant pathogens, not human pathogens.
The USDA Agency charged with human pathogens is FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Service) but their jurisdiction starts at the slaughter plant, not on the farm. Sadly, some zoonoses such as Salmonella spp. are widely spread among feral animals. The Shiga Toxin Escherichia coli are becoming widely spread among feral animals from dairies, and feed lots. With no action by USDA, HHS, or EPA, it will be more difficult for producer growers in the future.
For a legal argument, I recommend U.S.C. 21 602
As a former FDA investigator, its impt to obtain more information. The FDA has two types of investigators under "imports" and "Domestics". Domestics inspectors get more training and more inspections then imports. The inspectors are not utilized to their full potential or given proper training to specialize.
Regarding panelist comment about produce being a global market, American farmers need to meet safety standards, but how can we assure that imported produce has been grown and processed in compliance with American regulations and standards? Wouldn't requiring such compliance make the cost of production and importation closer to the costs for American farmers? Recalling the problems with imported produce in the past, how can we not insist on the same standards for food coming from outside America?
Well said!
The caller who lost his mother to the peanut butter outbreak mentioned the importance of holding the responsible people accountable. Instead of asking why your idol-in-chief's administration hasn't done anything (as you absolutely would have if it were a conservative business-friendly administration), you shifted the response back to your ever popular 'we need more regulators.' Good re-direct! Masterful. Right in line with NPR's 'don't ever say anything that could be embarrassing to Obama' policy.
I wonder if the FDIC regulation model would work. That is, government inspectors check banks regularly. Once they find problems, all inspections thereafter are at the bank's expense. And those inspections are expensive. Additionally, the inspection results are public. That doesn't make much difference in banking and it probably wouldn't make much difference with Perdue, initially. But - the threat of lawsuits with punitive damages available in the case a pattern of neglect can be shown will have a good effect.
What impact does the local food movement have on food contamination? Is it truly safer?
Does washing fruit and vegetables prior to ingestion reduce the liklihood of bacterial illness?
Our current head of the FDA is a former employee of Monsanto. Those of us that want to consume local, organic food, have a hard time thinking that the Food Safety Act will do anything but destroy small farm and increase the profitabilty of Monsanto, Tyson and other "Big Farm" businesses. We have an FDA that is comfortable with allowing Genetically Modified Organisms into our food system without proper research (and just to note--All of Europe bans GMO's).
Best solution: grow your own, buy from local sources that you know, and WASH it before you put it in your mouth!
Trixien,
Washing produce can remove exterior pathogens, but not pathogens that have entered the vasculature of the plants. Additionally, on produce with a rough surface like cantaloupes, washing is ineffective because the pathogens can "hide" in the crevices. Locally grown foods can also harbor pathogens; outbreaks from local foods tend to be smaller because of smaller distribution of the foods. I am unaware of well-designed studies demonstrating that locally grown foods are either more or less safe than foods shipped for longer distances.
Ms Rehm, you seem to suggest that this problem, like all social problems, can be resolved with legislation and greater regulation. Two points. Contrary to your program's global premise, bigger government isn't always better government. Oh, and there's this thing called the deficit. If FDA's budget is expanded to hire more inspectors, where will that money come from? Your precious Accountable Care Act? Oh, that's right, we'll just raise taxes to the top 2%; the DRShow universal answer to how to fund bigger govenment.
Also, as your small farmer caller suggested, regulation favors the larger producers because legislation is drafted with 'free' help from the larger players in the industry, whose lobbyists help ensure its passage. The language actually penalizes the small players, as was the case in the ACA (which you love to ignore). You imply that we need this legislation passed when none of us really know what's in it and how it will affect the various players. Again, right in line with your show's all-legislation-is-good, but horribly misguided.
I think the caller whose mother died from the contaminated peanut butter had a good point - if producers can be held personally liable for gross violations of USDA safety policies, then that could help incentivize the market to comply better.
I also found it interesting that insurance companies are requiring inspections. If producers are held accountable financially, that means that insurance companies are the ones that will have to pay out. Perhaps the inspection business should have state or federally mandated licensing and professinoal standards, like the appraisal business does. Then, it doesn't matter that the producer pays the inspection bill. If the inspector does shoddy work, they can lose their livelihood. The incentive goes back to proper inspecting.
Couple of old sayings come to mind:
"You get what you pay for."
"The best things in life are free."
I would say that the first saying is true. While you can get some good things cheaply, it's more likely you will get a better product for more money.
The second saying is probably predicated on what one considers "the best things in life." Otherwise, I think that in most cases, nothing in life is really free. There is a price, I believe, that must be paid for everything. By price I'm not referring just to money; we could be talking of effort as a sort of price to be paid.
But in the case of food safety, this is something that will cost money for everybody. You can't reasonably expect the job to be done for nothing. If you perform work, you should be paid for it. I fear that too many of us have been brought up with the idea that "someone else will pay for it". We were certainly sold the idea over many ideas by politicians of questionable ethics. We obviously turned-off our minds when we were listening to them. And now we see the results. This was one time (of many) when politicians defintely crossed party lines.
What's holding up food safety rules? Politics and money, and of course one group of politicians is waiting to blame the other group of politicians once the cost is ascertained.
@ IndieLady7
Eating local is your own choice and if you feel you have a better connection to the food you eat because of it then good for you. I think connecting to the people who grow your food and growing it yourself is something that's very fulfilling and an important part of a good community. But to say that ONLY local is safe is not correct. Local has absolutely nothing to do with food safety.
I happen to live in California where the majority of the nations fruits and vegetables are grown. Farmers out here are the most regulated in the country and have made great progress in the area of food safety. Groups like the California Cantaloupe Advisory Board and the LGMA (which you can find information about at Safeleafygreens.com) have brought small, medium and large farmers together to put food safety first. Every producer who is a member of these groups must submit to mandatory, frequent government inspections and reach 100% compliance to ensure that they have implemented each program's science based food safety practices on their farms.
The current cantaloupe outbreaks in Illinois and North Carolina could have been prevented. The producers should have had a food safety plan in place and the retailers should only be sourcing from certified suppliers who put food safety first, not just looking for the lowest price per box.
Also, washing your fruits and vegetables before consuming can greatly reduce the amount of bacteria and pathogens that could be present on your food. Consumers washing their food is a MUST and should be encourage wherever possible.
I was changing locations as I listened to your food safety program this morning. Did I actually hear a caller say, "Full disclosure. I am a Republican, not one of those who believes in science or reads books." ??