Food Safety and Big Government

WASHINGTON - JULY 31: William Hubbard, Senior Advisor to the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, testifies on the recent Salmonella outbreak at a hearing on Capitol Hill July 31, 2008 in Washington, DC. An outbreak of Salmonella in the U.S. was thought to have originated with tomatoes, but has recently been linked by the FDA to peppers grown on a farm in Mexico. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

William Hubbard, Senior Advisor to the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, testifies on the tomato-linked Salmonella outbreak at a hearing on Capitol Hill July 31, 2008 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

When I read headlines like “Peanut Recall Wipes out Energy Bar Company,” it confounds me to see that there are still people that who complain about regulations being bad for business in all cases. They continually insist that governmental oversight is bad for both everyday citizens and businesses. However, the lack of oversight in the food industry has caused thousands to to be sick and has even killed a few people. The peanut butter recall, the spinach, the tomato, and the jalapeno scares have all been incredibly bad for businesses. From growers to grocery stores to restaurants, all have wasted inventory and lost sales.

Governmental spending on oversight has stagnated for the last twenty years and its consequences have wreaked havoc on the food industry, human lives, and the economy. And the FDA still implements the same technique first used when it was created at the turn of the 20th century–spot checks at food processing plants.

It’s worse than you think: In the 1970’s there were 70,000 food processors in the US and the FDA inspected 35,000 a year, meaning they got everywhere every other year. Today, there are 150,000 plants and the FDA has the money and staff to inspect only 7,000 of them a year. Additionally, food imports pose a huge threat to our safety. About 15% of our food is coming from overseas, much of it from countries without a strict regulatory system, but the FDA does not have the capacity to test the food when it arrives. Do you take sugar or a little melamine in your coffee?

New technologies and a better operating system should be implemented for a 21st century food industry. Bill Hubbard, Former Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning for the FDA, suggests creating “preventive controls” that identify hazards and make sure they never occur in the first place (link). For instance, food should be heated to high enough temperatures to kill bacteria, and the equipment should be cleaned on a regular and frequent basis. These are basic regulations that all restaurants must adhere to if they don’t want to get shut down. That the factories that produce the food are exempt is simply asinine.

Take for example the Peanut Corporation of America, the originator of the recent peanut butter recall; former employees cited warnings of disease that could have been prevented by regular maintenance. With rats in the roasting peanuts, cockroaches in the building, and a leaky roof, it’s doubtful that the machinery was kept very clean (link). Really, do we want to wait until some inspector shows up–by my calculations, once every 21 years–in order to tell a business to clean out the rat droppings? Do you still champion smaller government and fewer regulations (if you are not too busy losing your lunch)?

These problems are glaring and dangerous, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Additionally, the FDA and USDA are in a constant struggle due to contradictory agendas and overlapping policy jurisdiction. Clearly, the rules of the game need to be changed.

I’m glad Obama is ordering a top-to-bottom review of the FDA, but without more money directed toward the agency and new technology implemented we will not be any better off. A sweeping revision of our current regulation is needed, and it necessitates a prescience that is unadulterated and unsullied by profit motives. Gambling on product and human safety is a risk that businesses should not be allowed to take. This is not even an ideological debate.  Companies like PCA have emperically shown that they cannot be trusted to put consumer safety first, even when it would be in their economic interest to do so. Surely, profit and consumers will suffer less if our food is secure.

February 23, 2009  Tags: , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Health, Politics

One Response

  1. Obama Addresses Nation’s Food Safety | Food Bubbles - March 16, 2009

    [...] lack of money. This blog has already criticized the decades of fund stagnation facing the FDA (link). However, the figures are even worse when it comes to food part of the FDA.   According to Bill [...]

Leave a Reply