Food Safety Shuffle

Why the House's new food safety bill won't make us healthier or safer

Katherine Mangu-Ward | August 11, 2009

Last month, the House got around to updating food safety laws that have been in effect since 1938. The bill, which the Senate will take up in the fall, gives the Food and Drug Administration substantial new inspection powers and beefs up funding for food safety research. It also adds a new $500 fee per facility for anyone involved in the food business. But will 159 pages of shiny, new 2009 rules actually make our food safer than the old-timey 1938 laws did?

When the bill passed the House, its author, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), crowed to The Washington Post: "This will fundamentally change the way in which we ensure the safety of our food supply." This is a very D.C. thing to get excited about. Bureaucratic change! Well, change in the FDA bureaucracy, anyway. The numerous additional rule makers and germ counters at the 15 other federal agencies also tasked with food supply supervision will continue with business as usual, unaffected by the new legislation.

Dingell has been riding the food safety hobbyhorse for more than 20 years, but he finally got some traction after the recent tainted peanut butter scandal, which probably scared peanut butter manufacturers a heck of a lot more than it did Dingell. Consider the speed of the recall (a few weeks) versus the speed of the new law (a couple of years).

Under the new rules, the power to issue recalls has been removed from the companies themselves and placed into the hands of a newly flush FDA-implementation of the new rules will cost federal taxpayers an additional $2.2 billion. A recall can be appallingly costly for a company, both in dollars and in reputation. But feeding a bunch of Americans unsafe food can be costlier still when the lawsuits start to stack up. (Dingell's bill exempts small producers from most of the new requirements, so this entire discussion is about the safety of the food churned out by the big boys.)

Recall math is tricky. We're not necessarily talking about the dreaded case of a company "putting a price on human life"—though that can and does happen in business and in government all of the time.

Instead, sometimes the causes of a case or two of food-borne illness simply aren't immediately clear: Did someone leave a single case of spinach with a tiny puncture too close to a Port-a-Potty, or is there something seriously wrong with the green's growth and distribution system? A nerve-racking wait-and-see period follows the first case or two of food poisoning as bean makers' bean counters try to figure out what's going on.

Companies have lawyers and accountants who do this math for them, and the FDA will too. But the FDA's formulas (and its political appointees) will put an awful lot more emphasis on the CYA variable, and a lot less on costs incurred by the companies. The result will be more frequent recalls for more marginal cases. That means more panic all around, in a country already obsessed with food safety-a self-perpetuating cycle. We may not wind up safer, just more worried.

Anyone who thinks corporate and public interests always match up is full of, well, tainted peanut butter. But the case of food safety does offer a closer-than-average alignment. A couple of high-profile incidents aside, this is why laws from the misty past were still working surprisingly well—news about food travels quickly in the era of panicky e-mail forwards and panicky-er cable television, and filing a class action lawsuit is easy as Hostess Cherry Pie. People don't want to get sick for personal reasons and food companies really don't want to make them sick for fiscal reasons. If and when a bunch of customers start feeling bilious, the CEO doesn't need an FDA food safety officer around to inform him that he is in deep, deep peanut butter.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at Zester Daily.

Comments

Mike in PA|8.11.09 @ 7:57AM|#

I keep hearing the lefties use this supposed quote from Thomas Jefferson:
If we're going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry

Can any Reasonites out there tell me if this was, in fact, an actual quote? I don't want to threadjack this topic, but this doesn't sound like TJ and I can't find when it was uttered or made up.

This is something they're using to show that our founding father would apporve of them taking care of us.

!</ </a>|8.11.09 @ 8:31AM|#

What do we need the 1938 food safety laws for to start with?

Are there really food producers who want to poison their customers?

Vines & Cattle|8.11.09 @ 8:51AM|#

But think of the stimulus that the $500 annual fee will provide!

|8.11.09 @ 9:00AM|#

What do we need the 1938 food safety laws for to start with?

Are there really food producers who want to poison their customers?

Of course there are -- we all know corporations' intentions are pure evil unless they are checked by benevolent bureaucrats. Without the bureaucrat, none of these corporations would ever survive because their evil ways would kill off all of their customers. So they should stop complaining and let the bureaucrat do what the bureaucrat does best -- meddle.

/sarcasm

!</ </a>|8.11.09 @ 9:17AM|#

bt,

lol, nice

T|8.11.09 @ 9:27AM|#

Yeah, nobody would contaminate the food they sell with melamine or anything else. That's just stupid, killing off your customers like that. And yet, it happens.

There is a need for food safety and certification, but there's no reason it can't be run like UL.

Vehical Driver|8.11.09 @ 9:34AM|#

Everyone knows that food safety legislation doesn't do anything to promote food safety... however, big corporations realized that food safety legislation help them convince the general public that their food is safe and so has value as security theater. Also, new expensive "health" requirements can be used to put small traditional producers out of business.

|8.11.09 @ 9:37AM|#

UL would be a good model for a lot of "regulation." Has it been overlooked because of the government's 800-lb. gorilla status in areas like food regulation and safety?

Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 9:50AM|#

the power to issue recalls has been removed from the companies themselves and placed into the hands of a newly flush FDA-implementation of the new rules

It's like a Medival Baron's retarded nephew put in charge of the court kitchen: get ready to die.

BruceM|8.11.09 @ 10:13AM|#

I wouldn't be surprised if the bill takes away consumers' right to sue food companies who sell poisoned/tainted products. As the article points out, avoiding lawsuits (more specifically, the cost of lawsuits) by consumers is the primary motivation for companies to sell safe products.

But in today's Republican-controlled world (you'd think the Democrats control things now, but they don't control shit), big companies write all the laws, and anything that will make their bottom line bigger is fair game. So it would not surprise me one bit to learn that something called the Children's Food Safety and Brave Americans Act (or whatever they're calling it) cuts out the biggest incentive that exists for safe food, because that incentive is a pain in the ass for companies.

If the power to issue recalls now resides with the government, and companies can no longer issue recalls, then companies can no longer get in trouble for not issuing a recall. Whatever "federal recall board" we get will be controlled by Republicans and will NEVER issue any recalls. Never. Too expensive, too complicated, always overkill, and will drop the DOW by a point. So there will be federal preemption over this area of the law (food poisoning cases are typically state law cases, though they may sit in federal court where diversity jurisdiction exists between defendants and plaintiffs of different states... but even then, state law still controls the lawsuit).

This law wouldn't exist if the food companies didn't want it, and didn't take the time to write it. So while it will surely waste taxpayer dollars, don't assume it creates a bureaucracy that's going to hurt the food companies. Only consumers will lose out with a law like this, but nobody gives a crap about the consumers.

And yes, as someone else pointed out, big companies are always willing to pay extra to squash and prevent competition. New laws are new barriers to market entry, and you can be damn sure that's what this will do. And I'm not talking about a simple $500 fee.

Vines & Cattle|8.11.09 @ 10:35AM|#

Are there really food producers who want to poison their customers?

Our marketing strategy is to poison one out of every six bottles of wine.

I'm thinking "Seeya Syrah", but the wife wants to go with "Pine Box Pinot".

|8.11.09 @ 10:40AM|#

There is a need for food safety and certification, but there's no reason it can't be run like UL.

Make that "an NRTL, UL for example" and I'm with you all the way. (I think that's what you meant anyway)

proud libitard|8.11.09 @ 10:58AM|#

shut the fuck up, LoneWacko!

Anonymous|8.11.09 @ 11:07AM|#

you'd think the Democrats control things now, but they don't control shit

So McGovern automatically turned into a Republican for card-counting purposes when he went into business for himself?

Whatever "federal recall board" we get will be controlled by Republicans and will NEVER issue any recalls. Never. [...] So while it will surely waste taxpayer dollars, don't assume it creates a bureaucracy that's going to hurt the food companies. Only consumers will lose out with a law like this, but nobody gives a crap about the consumers.

The moon is full, and this is bat country.

T|8.11.09 @ 11:10AM|#

Make that "an NRTL, UL for example"

What's NRTL?

|8.11.09 @ 11:12AM|#

Why go after the winos? If you put it in scotch, we could at least get rid of people who say stuff like "you can really taste the peat!!!" while one is trying to pleasantly get blitzed.

|8.11.09 @ 11:17AM|#

(you'd think the Democrats control things now, but they don't control shit),...

Or you could just admit that Democrats are even worse corporate whores than Republicans are.

It's the Democrats who are for "targeted tax cuts" and credits (ie gifts to cronies). And no Democrat ever voted against a corporate bailout - always 'for the workers", of course.

Jesus, man, just who the fuck has controlled Congress for most of the past seventy years anyway?

All the past eight years of Republican complete control should have told anyone is that the Republicans are big spenders and big cronies too, just like the Democrats.

|8.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#

"you can really taste the peat!!!"


ahh, scotch. it's like a good irish whisky but with a muttled lump of seaweed and cigarette butts.

|8.11.09 @ 11:53AM|#

Mike in PA
I hate to particpate in threadjacking but I found this reply to the liberal Jefferson quote which also cannot confirm as his.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson
Source BrainyQuote.com
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_4.html

|8.11.09 @ 12:12PM|#

I keep hearing the lefties use this supposed quote from Thomas Jefferson:
If we're going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry

I would be suspicious of that being an authentic Thomas Jefferson quote simply on the grounds that it uses the word "democratic". That was not a word in respectable use in most of his lifetime, IIANM.

Furthermore the wording of the whole thing rings of anachronism. It's a much more modern style than TJ would have used, IMO. So it is at best a paraphrasing of something that he might have said.

Sean W. Malone|8.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#

I believe that that is in fact a paraphrasing of a Jefferson quote, but Jefferson himself founded several schools to achieve that aim. He did sometimes support public education - and you can find many quotes to that effect, but given his overall philosophy, I think you can be sure that he did not support any type of nationally funded Dept. of Education.

It's not necessarily unreasonable, I would say, to have some "free" schooling paid for by local districts (voluntarily of course). And if you have the clout & money to start your own university, that would be great too.

|8.11.09 @ 12:40PM|#

I wouldn't be surprised if the bill takes away consumers' right to sue food companies who sell poisoned/tainted products.

I would. The trial lawyers would never sit still for it, and the Dems would never cross the trial lawyers.

More likely, the bill creates additional causes of action, statutory damages, or other things the trial lawyers can take to the bank.

|8.11.09 @ 12:46PM|#

If we're going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry

Sounds bogus to me.

(1) A contraction? "We're"? Anacnronistic.
(2) Sentence construction "if we're going to have" sounds anachronistic.
(3) As noted, "democratic" sounds odd for the time. As does, for that matter, "successful".


And, finally, there is no such quote at the University of Virginia compendium of Jefferson quotes.

Sean W. Malone|8.11.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Oh, I totally didn't read the "healthy" part...

The quote I was thinking of that that was taken from I believe was probably this:

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

Anyway... To suggest that any quote like that indicates that he would have supported the kind of government idiocy we have going on right now is pure nonsense. Just peruse BrainyQuote on Jefferson to see what I mean.

Sean W. Malone|8.11.09 @ 1:29PM|#

Also - Jefferson wasn't interested in having a successful "democratic" society - he was interested in a Republic, so whatever that original quote was was ridiculously off base.

|8.11.09 @ 1:45PM|#

R C Dean:

agreed,

also the idiomatic usage of the word "going" seems out of place too. i could be wrong, it just doesn't seem correct though.

i wonder if Monticello could be consulted regarding the veracity of this quote.

must go have a look at their site...

|8.11.09 @ 1:49PM|#

SWM:

of course he wouldn't, but you're not supposed to know that. because the educational system has taught everyone that the founders were all pro democracy, and that we have a democratic government.

|8.11.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Hasn't anyone here read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? Or read about Samuel Hopkins Adams' expose of 19th century patent medicines?

Or you could just find out what the FDA's current upper limits are for insect segments and rat feces in today's foodstuffs.

Bon Appetite!

|8.11.09 @ 1:53PM|#

from the Monticello site:

1787 December 20. (to James Madison) "Above all things I hope the education on the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."[4]

|8.11.09 @ 2:04PM|#

almost drafted

Upton Sinclair? who's that? oh wait, isn't he that PRIVATE citizen that created a public outcry by exposing the horrors of the meatpacking industry?

and your point is what? a private citizen exposes unsanitary practices and sparks government intervention, instead of independent consumer oriented private certification.

leaving us with what?

oh yeah, the same FDA you've already vilified for me.

it's almost like you were really close to getting it, but just missed the obvious.

glad to help.

|8.11.09 @ 2:06PM|#

What's NRTL?

NRTL is Nationally Recognized Test Lab. These are private independent labs that meet a standard criteria for competence, equipment calibrations, independence. They conduct safety testing and allow the client to apply their certification mark based on the results of the sample tested. Common NRTL marks are UL/UR, ETL, TUV, MET, CSA, and a few more. Think privatized FDA. Almost every electronic product you buy has an NRTL's mark on it - certified safe to industry standards by a private, often for-profit, organization.

I was just pointing out "UL" is only one of several of these approved labs.

http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/

Mike in PA|8.11.09 @ 2:18PM|#

Thank you RC! Just what I was looking for. We can now call this thread un-jacked.

William Furr|8.11.09 @ 2:43PM|#

How about I take matters into my own hands and just opt out of the industrial food system to as great an extent as possible?

I have only myself to blame if I get sick or kill myself with my own canned vegetables and backyard garden produce.

Lord Jubjub|8.11.09 @ 3:04PM|#

Look up the 'Elixir sulfanilamide incident' in Wikipedia.

A chemist used diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent for a drug without ever inquiring about its toxicity. He would have discovered that DEG is quite toxic. Over 100 people died before the FDA got it off the market.

|8.11.09 @ 3:13PM|#

look up "Vioxx".


the idea is not that standards and accountability are not needed, rather that they ought to be private.

|8.11.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Hi Ransom,

Yup, Sinclair was a private citizen -- and a socialist to boot. But how many other private-citizen whistle-blowers have you heard about in the food industry? One swallow does not a summer make...

The ratio of FDA inspectors to food processing sites is distressingly low. Georgia had 60 inspectors assigned to about 16,000 food processing sites in that peanut butter salmonella case.

Suggesting that the FDA needs improvement is hardly vilification.

T|8.11.09 @ 3:43PM|#

NRTL is Nationally Recognized Test Lab. These are private independent labs that meet a standard criteria for competence, equipment calibrations, independence. They conduct safety testing and allow the client to apply their certification mark based on the results of the sample tested.

Exactly. As long as the .gov is not dictating the standards, I'm fine.

|8.11.09 @ 5:34PM|#

almost drafted,

"Suggesting that the FDA needs improvement is hardly vilification."


perhaps, but suggesting the FDA needs any further vilification is hardly an improvement.

hee hee..

i think my point stands, and yours only goes to mine. you further indicate the sad state of affairs w/ the FDA at the helm.
i'm not a detractor from regulation, i'm pro self and private regulation.

as Patrick Weinert put it several years back:

"Who has a stronger incentive to truly protect the consumer? Producers in the market whose livelihoods depend on it? Or bureaucrats in Washington who are utterly disconnected from the market process and easily manipulated by special interests?"

|8.12.09 @ 12:23PM|#

This will also help those foreign companies who aren't accountable to the FDA. I wonder who in the US benefits from that?

|8.12.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Ransom,

I think Patrick Weinart is asking the wrong question. The question should be, "Which is the stronger incentive, protection of the consumer or profit?"

So why wasn't the incentive you and Weinart talk about enough to prevent the food safety issues turned up by Sinclair, when there was no FDA?

You do have a point about the danger of special interests, though. In the 2004-2008 election cycle, agribiz contributed more than $65M to Federal candidates and parties.

If you think that money was spent to push for improvement in consumer safety, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers,

JP