FDA Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary of a Food Safety Law That Hasn't Made Our Food Safer

The Food Safety Modernization Act is all hat and no cattle.


In a week when hundreds of President Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as part of an effort to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election—the latter of which Congress subsequently confirmed was won handily by President-elect Joe Biden—you'd be forgiven if it escaped your notice that one of the country's worst food laws, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), just celebrated the 10th anniversary of its signing.

FSMA, which was signed into law on January 4, 2011, by President Obama, gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "more power to crack down on food-safety scofflaws and decrease the incidence of foodborne illness across the country," I detailed in a 2012 law-review article, The Food-Safety Fallacy: More Regulation Doesn't Necessarily Make Food Safer.

Before madness overtook the Capitol this week, the FDA was celebrating the law's birthday.

"It's not enough to respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness," said Frank Yiannas, the FDA's deputy commissioner for food policy, in a statement this week. "We must prevent them from happening in the first place."

That shift from a reactive to a proactive agency, Yiannas notes, was Congress's mandate to the FDA in passing FSMA, the most noteworthy update of agency food-safety enforcement in decades. So how's it going?

Yiannas describes what he sees as FSMA's key accomplishments, including that food businesses "are now taking concrete steps every day to reduce the risk of contamination" and that the law has caused a "bigger conversation about the importance of food safety," strengthened agency partnerships with business and civil society, "advanced food safety," and fostered "safer food in this country."

But has it really done that?

In 2011, before FSMA was implemented, the Centers for Disease Control, which tracks and responds to foodborne illness outbreaks, estimated that tainted food causes around 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths in the United States each year. Today, a decade on, those CDC estimates remain unchanged. Lest you think those CDC estimates merely haven't been updated in some time, the agency reported earlier this year that "[t]he incidence of most infections transmitted commonly through food has not declined for many years."

So if FSMA has not reduced cases of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths, then what was it all for?

Well, it turns out the law wasn't really designed to reduce those illnesses, hospitalizations, or deaths. Indeed, the idea that FSMA would revolutionize the FDA by changing it from a reactive to a proactive agency always rang hollow. The FDA predicted that FSMA's best-case reductions in foodborne illness would be an annual decline between 3.7 percent and 5.4 percent. Even that didn't happen.

The FDA knows FSMA is failing to achieve its objectives. Consider that nearly any time the agency discusses FSMA, it refers to foodborne illness as "a significant public health burden that is largely preventable." In 2015, Dr. David Acheson, a former FDA associate commissioner for foods, rightly argued that the key marker for FSMA's success would be whether the law "drive[s] down foodborne illness" and yields "the public health gains that this is all about." But in 2018, a FSMA working group reported that using cases of foodborne illness to assess FSMA's efficacy is "a high bar to prove a relationship to the FSMA rules."

That may be true. But FSMA cannot be a success if overall foodborne illness numbers don't fall. Dramatically. And they have not.

To be fair, FSMA isn't all bad. The law did give the FDA one important power—the authority to order a recall of foods that are adulterated (tainted) or misbranded (labeled inaccurately), either of which could sicken or kill one or more persons. And though FSMA is a needless burdensome, clearly ineffective, and costly law that should be repealed forthwith, that's not to say all federal food-safety laws or programs are wrongheaded. They're not.

For example, I've explained previously that the CDC's PulseNet tracking program, which "prevents more than 275,000 cases of foodborne illness each year," is a smart and highly successful program for tracing, combating, and limiting foodborne illness outbreaks. It's also inexpensive and doesn't impose additional regulations on food producers.

Toward the end of Yiannas's statement this week on FSMA, he references a new FDA approach he's championing: the New Era of Smarter Food Safety.

That evolving approach, which I explained last year will "ramp[] up the use of technology to improve traceability and reduce the spread and impact of future cases of foodborne illness," is at odds with the proactive approach implemented under FSMA.

That fact alone makes the New Era of Smarter Food Safety sound both realistic and promising. And it reiterates—along with CDC data and other factors—that a decade on, FSMA has failed to meet the lofty food-safety goals its supporters argued it would achieve.

NEXT: A Silicon Curtain Descends

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Do you want to earn cash online from your living room, easily work with a laptop for a few hours a day, earn 550-650 euros a day and get paid every week by deciding on your working hours? it is all true and completely changed my life. Then try this. Read More.

      1. Everybody can earn 1000 dollars Daily… Yes! you can earn more than you think by working online from home. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last week payment was exactly 29000 dollars.

        This Website OPEN HERE……………work92/7 online

    2. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information….. Visit Here

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

    4. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months FD and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

    5. My real time work with facebook Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it. All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life. For more statistics visit below site HERE☛Click For Full Detail.

    6. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy andQWE simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  2. In a week when hundreds of President Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as part of an effort to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election—the latter of which Congress subsequently confirmed was won handily by President-elect Joe Biden—you’d be forgiven if it escaped your notice that>/b> one of the country’s worst food laws, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), just celebrated the 10th anniversary of its signing.

    Too bad, previously respected Linnekin could have begun his report without the bolded part, but he chose not to.

    1. Where’s the edit button? LOL

      1. Right next to the spambot filter, Dan.

    2. There’s nothing unusual about leading an article “You probably missed this because of the big story…”

      Oh, you mean that’s not allowed because it’s about Trump and his rioters?

      I can’t wait for him to be swept into the dustbin of history and his followers’ derangement to fade.

      1. His stuff used to be pretty straight up, sticking to the topic. But for such a short article to bury the lede, and then add another sentence pretty much saying the same thing a few para later…..

        Maybe the editor is seeing the response metrics on the Trump-bashing articles and added these lines to keep the numbers up.

        Proof: We’re commenting on the Trump digs and not the article’s topic, food safety law, so it’s working!

      2. But when you get the same thing for a week, in reference to something totally unrelated, it gets kind’a obvious.

        1. It’s been 3 days. A week is 7 days. When it reaches 7 days, you are authorized to complain that, honestly, it’s been a week!

          1. Yes, that’s right.
            Pettifog over the minutia instead of the argument like a good little fifty-center.

          2. Fuck off SQRLSY

      3. Nevermind I figured it out.

        His editor asked for an 800 word article. Without mention of the Capitol protest, it’s 743 words. Add what he did about the Capitol protest, it’s 799.

        Case closed.

      4. |<<< "There’s nothing unusual about leading an article “You probably missed this because of the big story…”

        You'd be right if he said what you actually said he said. But instead he added an unrelated summary of a different story and editorial that one before adding, "you'd be forgiven if it escaped your notice…" apparently as a supposedly cute segue. Um, well thanks, but I give you back your forgiveness of me because this trivial story would have escaped my attention anyway.

        But hey, in a world where journalism is what it is, this could actually be a lead on every article for the next month, and anyone who doesn't like it is just a Trumper.
        "“In a month when hundreds of President Trump’s supporters… you'd be forgiven if you didn't know all about the #FreeBritney movement…"

        This bullshit lead paragraph will get you an automatic C – on any high school paper, and it's not because the teacher doesn't agree with your open.

    3. “In a week when hundreds of President Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as part of an effort to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election”

      There are a number of questionable assumptions packed in there.

      1) Reading the minds of hundreds of people and assuming that they were all of one mind because they were all doing the same thing and you don’t like it is a questionable assumption.

      A hundred people may hit the drive thru at McDonalds for different reasons. One wants a milkshake. One wants coffee. One is there because it’s a cheap way to feed the kids. One wants a collectible Mandalorian cup. One because it’s on the way home.

      2) Even those who were there to protest the election may have considered the election legitimate.

      Every time the Dodgers win, it seems like an atrocity against American values and nature to me–regardless of whether the win was legitimate.

      The Dodgers?


      1. “There are a number of questionable assumptions packed in there…”

        You are too kind; let’s just be honest and call it well-poisoning.

      2. The underlying drive of the hundred people at Mickey D’s is hunger, thirst, or both. Whether they’re stopping after work or stuffing the kids with junk food is immaterial.

        1. You forgot the goofball who wanted the Chinese made Mandalorian? item. Hunger and thirst was not required. And don’t forget the guy accessing the relatively clean bathroom. Many reasons beside hunger and thirst to be in Mcdonalds.

        2. Ken is correct and YOU presume too much, sure of what you think you know given your lack of information to the contrary. There are literally dozens of other motivations to do that other than hunger or thirst. In fact, given what we know about certain food addictions, hunger may not even be at the top of the list.

        3. If you assume 1) that you know what hundreds of people are thinking and 2) that they’re all thinking the same thing, then you’re making at least two questionable assumptions.

      3. Just for you, Ken:

        RIP, Tommy Lasorda

      4. Howcum Trump’s armchair advisors suddenly quit extolling the virtues of girl-bullying? Clearly 95% of those bloated fatties and toothless harridans are there to bring back Wallace Dixiecrat coathanger abortions, the other 5% to get cops to shoot blacks and hippies–so why not proclaim it loudly?

  3. SleepyJoe will fix this. More regulations and rules will solve the problem.

    1. Teedy Rosenfeld’s Republican Pure Food Law to ban liquor and plant products, fine, confiscate and imprison, directly resulted in the Panic of 1907 and multi-year depression those looters struggle to ignore. The 1906 law only took effect in 1907, as clumsy an attempt at misdirection as ever disgraced a a nation.

  4. Reason thinks it will get LESS regulations in the future. Reason has no idea the tidal wave of regulations and exec orders coming its way.

    1. Yea! More government employees building a bigger circle-jerk bureaucracy.

      Seriously, when two of your “major accomplishments” over the course of a decade include “bigger conversation about importance” and “strengthened agency relationships”, you’re just spitting out word salad to justify word salad spitting. I’m just shocked that “comprehensive meetings” didn’t make the list.

      Having actually not accomplished any results in the last decade just means we need a bigger budget to do more of the same.

  5. We will know that the election was “legitimate” after some scrutiny because: dozens of new regulations and procedures were put in place by unusual actors without review. Extraordinary new voting methods were validated. New electronic devices were employed. Shadow funding and grants at the election boards level was bizarre, as in, Why do election boards need to accept grants, in the millions from foundations?
    There was an all out effort to get Trump. Fair enough. This columnist stuffs his vitriol into an otherwise unrelated article. Lots of folks were doing worse.

    1. You must be referring to the situation in Texas where an unusual actor, the Republican governor, put in a new procedure affecting early voting without review. I agree. Texas must be stripped of its 38 electoral votes.

      As for grants to election boards, Republican legislatures have slashed and burned funding for many years in their ongoing campaign to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters as possible. Because of that, elections couldn’t be held without private donations. But not having elections is a Republican wet dream, so that’s a feature, not a bug.

      Finally, new electronic devices were employed because Congress passed a law requiring new electronic devices so that every voter could either use a paper ballot or get a paper receipt of their vote.

      In real life, there are very few actual conspiracies compared to the plethora of phony conspiracies that clutter the minds of rightwing paranoiacs.

      1. Fuck off Jeff.

    2. See? And as long as the lewsers are a bunch of girl-bullying televangelism-addled cowardly fanatics, nobody gives a damn. Fiscal conservatism does not require a law-school Tammy Faye Bakker on the Suprema Corte, or militarized cops kicking in doors and murdering people over plant leaves. It certainly does not require a Mussolini-style invasion of primitive African satrapies. You idiots could have respected individual rights, preferred the initiation of force and got off lighter than hanging upside down at a gas station.

  6. Eric, you demonstrate your idiocy once again. Biden did not “win handily”. He won by about the same bare margin as Trump won in 2016.

    Geez, stop throwing around nonsense. Try to be objective for a change.

    1. I’ll bet the things you write sound reasonable when they’re tumbling about amongst your brain cell duopoly. But once they reach your keyboard…

      In 2020, Biden received 7 million more popular votes and 74 more electoral votes than Trump did. In 2016, Clinton received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump while he got 74 more electoral votes. While the electoral votes may have been the “same bare margin”, Trump was stomped like a rabid cockroach in the popular vote.

      Geez, stop throwing around nonsense. Try to be objective for a change. That’s good advice you should take yourself.

      1. 2016: 2.8 million margin over 128.8ish million total votes = about 2%

        2020: 7 million margin over 161ish million total votes = around 4%

        Assuming my source numbers are accurate, I’d hardly say that’s getting “stomped like a rabid cockroach.”

        1. Gaslighting and fiddling with the figures is all Jeff’s got.

          I suppose the technical term for what Jeff is doing is called “lying”.

        2. For 2020, there were 135 million registered voters.

          There were more votes cast than registered voters.

      2. Biden and Hillary won a race that didn’t exist and didn’t count. Trump won the 2016 races, plural, that did count, but by the same small margin which he lost the 2020 races, plural, that did count.

      3. Fuck off Jeff.

  7. It’ll be really interesting to see how people react to the realization that their opinions don’t matter anymore–under the boot of the progressives. The fact is that there is no means to resist their policies–persuasion doesn’t matter anymore.

    I don’t think most Americans have had to deal with utter political powerlessness before. There is still a loyal opposition, but it has no point of traction, no means to influence policy. Who are the opposition journalists even writing for anymore, when there’s nothing the opposition can do?

    The progressives don’t care what the opposition thinks about anything, since they don’t need to seek the cooperation of the opposition on anything–but the progressives don’t care what their own constituents think about anything either! Why isn’t marijuana legal in New York? Why were the police protected from accountability in places like Minnesota in the first place?

    The positive role of the opinion press in a free society is to inform and persuade the voters, but in the world that the anti-Trump, non-progressive apologists have created, what’s an opinion piece for anymore? We are being ruled for the next two years, and it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks about it.

    No opinion piece will really matter until the next election cycle starts.

    So, what does the press do now?

    Some of them, like zombies, will keep writing the pieces they’ve always written as if nothing has changed. Others, who weren’t on the progressive bandwagon before, will probably gravitate to vigorously defending the progressive cause–just to maintain some relevance. At least propagandizing the people on behalf of the government has a purpose!

    They’ll start propagandizing, telling us that Medicare for All isn’t really that bad, that we probably shouldn’t be free to own “assault weapons” anyway, that the Green New Deal is necessary, and that packing the Supreme Court is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. They’ll tell us it was all inevitable.

    Meanwhile, we’ll remember that none of this two-year progressive horror show would be happening if President Trump had been reelected, that much of it might not be happening if the Republicans had won the senate races in Georgia, and we’ll know that the only way out of our two year horror show is to vote for Republicans–so that they can save us libertarians.

    Some of them will continue to maintain that it doesn’t really matter who wins the elections because neither major party is libertarian–like Baghdad Bob insisting that the Americans aren’t even in the capital city, right up until the moment that American troops walked into the frame and turned off his satellite feed.

    1. Why isn’t Marijuana legal in New York? Because the state government was dominated by Republicans between 1895 and 1975, the key years for Reefer Madness.

      Why were the police protected in Minnesota? Because people like you tar anyone seeking police accountability as a Marxist. Which is odd, because Marxists love police states.

      1. So marijuana isn’t legal because NY’s state government was republican 46 years ago?

        1. Mmm yeah, that’s his argument. Gonna guess he’s still blaming his 8th grade English teacher and the girls who dissed him in HS for his failed life too.

        2. For a half a century the Democrats have run New York as their own little fiefdom, but EdG Jeff’s sock seems to think that somehow they were forced (FORCED!) to follow the dictates of a previous dynasty who ruled all those years ago.

          And this totally isn’t gaslighting because mumble, mumble.

      2. “Why isn’t Marijuana legal in New York? Because the state government was dominated by Republicans between 1895 and 1975, the key years for Reefer Madness.”

        The reason California has legal marijuana–despite the progressives who control Sacramento not giving a shit about what the voters want–is because California has a referendum process.

        The reason New York doesn’t have legal marijuana is because the progressives who control the state government don’t give a shit about what the voters want–AND–because New York doesn’t have a referendum process.

        In single party governments, decisions are made between the inside interests that control the party–and not just in the United States but everywhere. That’s what we should expect for the next two years–especially from the progressives.

        The whole point of progressivism is to force people to make sacrifices for the common good (as they see it). Ignoring what the people want isn’t good enough. Progressive piety is about forcing people to do things against their will–specifically because they don’t want to do them, with the individual mandate, gun confiscation, and sacrificing our standard of living on the altar of climate change by way of the Green New Deal being excellent examples.

        For goodness’ sake, the progressives of New York don’t think you should be allowed to buy large sized sugary soft drinks. Why would they let you consume marijuana? Because you want to? That isn’t a good reason to let you do something. That’s a good reason for the police to stop you from doing it. Marijuana isn’t good for you!

        And that’s just one example.

        1. “Final Push to Legalize Pot Fails in New York”

          —-NYT, June 19, 2019


          1. Yeah…. but a bunch of dead Republicans. ‘N prolly some other stuff too. Cuz reasons.

      3. “Why were the police protected in Minnesota? Because people like you tar anyone seeking police accountability as a Marxist.”

        Marxists don’t want police accountability.

        1. Yeah, that was a bit of a typo. I really meant to write, “Why were the police protected from accountability in places like Minnesota [Minneapolis] in the first place?”

          And the answer has something to do with the fact that the Minneapolis city council that the Minneapolis city council, whose job it is to oversee local law enforcement and negotiate contracts with their unions, has been 100% progressive since at least the 1960s.


          When you have a single party government, decisions are made by the interests that control the party–not the voters. It doesn’t matter who’s in the general election. All that matters is that if you win the nomination in the Democrat primaries, you win the seat. The nomination process is decided mostly by the law enforcement unions themselves.

          This is now our national government.

          If you aren’t a Democrat donor, union, or politician, it doesn’t matter what you think about anything–for the next two years. And that means Democrat voters, too. The reason California, Illinois, and other states that are 100% controlled by the Democrats have out of control pension costs isn’t because that’s the way Democrat voters want it to be. It’s because the Democrat party machines that have had those states sewn up for decades don’t give a shit about what the voters want.

          1. “And the answer has something to do with the fact that the Minneapolis city council that the Minneapolis city council, whose job it is to oversee local law enforcement and negotiate contracts with their unions, has been 100% progressive since at least the 1960s.”

            Yes, I grew up in Minneapolis. They really are far left for the midwest. But it was mostly still a decent place to live until last year. I know someone who is now afraid to leave her house except to go to work because the chances of being robbed multiplied like 5 times. I know they are big on voter fraud now too, so there is probably no chance of replacing the morons in charge who don’t know how to anything but predictably bad new safety initiatives. The Police Department is practically dissolving with all the early retirements

            1. After I graduated from HS in the early to mid ’00s, I lived there for a few years and could walk most places by myself even at night (I’m female, btw) I’m sure thats far from the case now

              1. The legitimate purpose of law enforcement is to protect our rights from criminals, and if the city council had focused on that, instead of protecting law enforcement from accountability, the police wouldn’t have . . . um . . . .lost their mandate.

  8. West Virginia’s Joe Manchin is now the most powerful US Senator.

    In a recent interview, he said the filibuster won’t be eliminated if the Democrats took control of the Senate (implying that he’d vote against it), which would prevent Dems from packing the SCOTUS, adding two new states (or even one), and many/most other Pelosi/Schumer policy goals.

    I suspect Mitch McConnell has already offered Manchin the chairmanship of any committee he desires (if he votes for McConnell for Majority Leader and caucuses with the Republicans).

    If/when AOC and other far left wing members of Congress criticize Manchin for blocking their radical agenda (i.e. end the filibuster, pack the SCOTUS, add two more states, ban fracking, etc.), Manchin might take Mitch up on his offer (especially if the squad refers to Manchin as a hillbilly).

    1. All good reasons for primarying Manchin in 2022. Thanks for providing such a concise list of his ethical and moral inadequacies.

      1. Get up off of your knees.

      2. Wipe your chin, Jeff. You’ve got DNC boybutter all over it.

    2. Did you miss Murkowski demanding that Trump leave early, or she’s switching parties? https://www.adn.com/politics/2021/01/08/alaska-sen-lisa-murkowski-calls-on-president-trump-to-resign-questions-her-future-as-a-republican/ I fully expect to see a bunch of other Republicans flip after the last few days, especially in contested seats.

      Point is, Manchin is, and has been, easily bought before. He likely will vote No on ditching the filibuster, and it’s not going to matter. Putting your faith in him to hold back whatever is planned, is foolish.

  9. In 2015, Dr. David Acheson, a former FDA associate commissioner for foods, rightly argued that the key marker for FSMA’s success would be whether the law “drive[s] down foodborne illness” and yields “the public health gains that this is all about.”

    What a novel concept! Measuring the success of a law by whether or not it did what it said it was going to do in the time and at the price it said it was going to do it! If only there were some way of making this a general concept for government programs and then axing those programs that don’t meet their stated benchmarks. But we all know that ain’t gonna happen, everybody knows there is no way to ever get rid of a government program once it’s initiated no matter how costly and ineffective it is. What we need are automatic sunset provisions and contractual benchmarks, which will surely work just as well as the debt ceiling and the various budget control acts have worked to restrain government spending. Or we could just start stringing up politicians who vote for this shit.

    1. Did FSMA have the enforcement power to make the desired changes? Or was it, as usual, watered down to inconsequentiality by the producer lobbyists? It’s disingenuous to set regulations up to fail and then say, “See? Regulation is bad!!” when it does fail.

      1. You do realize that you’re arguing for regulations on an (ostensibly) libertarian site, right?

        1. It’s yet another shitbag troll, without being as entertaining as Tulpa’s various incarnations. I can have a discussion with people. I frequently disagree with Alphabet, to pick on him. But I can talk with him. It isn’t an exercise in futility.

          It’s a waste of my time to have one with those whose only purpose is to disrupt. Flag, and refresh.

  10. I suspect Biden has already asked Pelosi to NOT impeach Trump a second time next week, because doing so will make Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Jeffries, Hoyer and other House Democrats appear extremely vindictive (and because the Senate will reject the impeachment, just as they did a year ago, right before Democrat Governors conspired to lockdown New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, etc. as their next strategy to remove Trump).

    But if Pelosi impeaches Trump next week, she will find it far more difficult to get lots of votes through the House in the next two years (as the Dems only have 6 Democrat House votes to spare on any full House vote).

    1. I think there’s a better case of removing Pelosi for seditious acts right now than Trump.

      Pelosi said she had spoken with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.” . . .

      According to the New York Times, Defense Department officials have expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and Cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

      Mr. Trump, they noted, is still the commander in chief, and unless he is removed, the military is bound to follow his lawful orders.

      According to the NYT, while military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

      Trying to incite a military coup is sedition, which is exactly what Pelosi did.

      It’s almost like these idiots are deliberately trying to foment civil war. I never expected that when the West succumbed to tyranny it would be wearing clown shoes.

      Anyway, when even the NYT is saying back the fuck off, you know you went a little too crazy. White Knight/DOL not withstanding.


    2. “…and because the Senate will reject the impeachment…”

      Sure about that? After the pathetic display of abasement by Republicans, post 1/6, I’m not. I can easily see 17-25 of them thinking a vote to dump Trump will bring about national unity or some other garbage.

      And Trump’s gotta’ go NOW! For some inexplicable, no doubt horrifying reason.

      1. McConnell already pushed impeachment to start the 19th. Easily delayed past the date. The attempt is pure political posturing by democrats.

        1. Well that’s something, at least.

          Thanks for clarifying.

    3. Because Cori Bushs resolution to expel over 100 duly elected representatives and a half dozen senators isn’t vindictive?

  11. Journalista continue to be the dumbest of us all.

    Grace Segers
    Replying to @Grace_Segers
    Congressman Markwayne Mullin was one of the lawmakers who bravely helped barricade the doors to the House chamber. But according to video obtained by @PunchbowlNews, he was not wearing a mask, and even appeared to decline one when another lawmaker was handing them out.

    1. “…But according to video obtained by @PunchbowlNews, he was not wearing a mask,..”

      I can’t EVEN!

    2. SON of a bitch! That crazy bastard could have spread the pox!

      I really don’t know what to make of Woke psychology. Even religious fundamentalists don’t exhibit that sort of disconnect from reality.

  12. “FDA Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary of a Food Safety Law That Hasn’t Made Our Food Safer”

    Well, if they don’t pat themselves on the back for wasting taxpayer money, who will?

  13. “Adulterated” and “misbranded” are scary words that mean “not in compliance with FDA regulations”. They cover everything from paperwork errors not affecting health or safety to contamination causing serious danger of death. This is the government that classified breakfast cereal as a drug. It doesn’t understand how to distinguish trivial from serious.

    1. The government does understand how to distinguish. However, Republicans work extremely hard to ensure regulations don’t distinguish trivial from serious so that can be used as a reason to neuter the regulation.

    2. I think the real issue is what the article points out, which is that the CDC has a lot more to do with tracking and preventing food-borne illnesses than the FDA. The FDA can mandate labeling and contents of foods, but the really dangerous outbreaks that have occurred always seem to go back to things like a producer that’s allowed salmonella to taint vegetables or a restaurant that’s not handling or storing food properly. These tend to be local or regional problems, and often they’re dealt with by local and state health departments, aided by the CDC. I would argue that the FDA has its hands in too many areas and should only be approving and regulating prescription and over-the-counter medications – not food, not tobacco, not vaping paraphernalia.

  14. If anyone is looking for a new entry level high end watch, this company makes some good stuff and has put out another good ad.


    1. It’s very good, but too long. That should be broken up into at least four new ads.

  15. “That shift from a reactive to a proactive agency”…. Awe; The very curse of power-mad progressives. Why wait till a person commits a crime; just lock them UP now and steal all their money ‘just in case’.

    Sell your souls to the [WE] progressive mob; because YOU don’t own you… [WE] own you!

  16. If US Capital Police (costing taxpayers $460 million) simply opened the doors to those who “stormed the US Capital” then who would ever trust that the FDA (costing taxpayers $3.2 billion) would provide safety.


    What’s more creepy, that Good Americans submit to The Authorities for the sake of Safety? Or, that Good Americans believe there is Safety in The Authorities?

    How did America become so insanely occupied with the illusion of Safety.

  17. Covid testing is still a mess after all of these months, and vaccinations are at only a tenth of the number promised. Maybe all of these nonsense laws somehow contribute to these fundamental failures.

    1. Unity.

      Pelosi said, “Well, sadly, the person who’s running the executive branch is a deranged, unhinged, dangerous president of the United States, and only a number of days until we can be protected from him. But he has done something so serious that there should be prosecution against him.”

      1. That from the woman who just tried to foment a coup Thursday, using the Pentagon, that even the NYT said was going too far.
        She’s just lucky she hasn’t been arrested for that.

    2. “On Wednesday, a mob apparently composed of Trump supporters forced its way past US Capitol security guards and briefly moved unrestrained through much of the Capitol building”

      Except at least one door, that i saw, where the security guards waved them through

  18. Who knew Mexico would become the new mecca of open and free speech?

    “I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the the right to post a message on Twitter or Face(book). I don’t agree with that, I don’t accept that,” said López Obrador,

    1. PLEASE move to Mexico, then, and get your free speech there!

      1. “America, love it or leave it”

        Sqrlsy morphed into J. Edgar Hoover so smoothly I hardly noticed.

        1. He does have weird fetishes…

      2. Yes sqrsly. You ready proved youre okay with authoritarianism today. No need to continue proving it.

        Next up ..

        Sqrsly defends databases to go after people. He would have been good with forced star patches as well.


        It is sad watching even you become part of the authoritarian mob. Please never claim libertarianism again.

  19. Big surprise. Nothing to hate on Trump about today and Reason puts out what, two articles.

  20. In a week when hundreds of Emmanuel Goldstein’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as part of an effort to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election—the latter of which Congress subsequently confirmed was won handily by President-elect Joe Biden—you’d be forgiven if it escaped your blah, blah, blah…

    A tear rolled down Baylen’s cheek as he typed those words.
    O cruel, needless misunderstanding!
    O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast!
    Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.
    He had won the victory over himself.
    Baylen loved Big Brother.”

    1. It has been amazing watching self described libertarians rationalize and foment the destruction of free speech over this week’s actions while having rationalized and defended over 200 destructive riots resulting in 2 billion in damage and 25 deaths.

    2. When the Democrats move to pass a bill to pack the Supreme Court, a huge public demonstration in Washington DC against it may be our only hope.

      I don’t think the Democrats and the media are doing this to delegitimatize and discourage future demonstrations from stage right, but what they’re doing is delegitimizing and discouraging future demonstrations against stacking the Court, the Green New Deal, etc.

      1. You’re making WAY too much sense here….. 🙂

  21. Amazon is supposedly going to shut down Parler soon

    Why are they all in such a huge rush?

    1. Because the push for average people on the right to flood DC and protest will be huge during Biden’s first 100 days in office–and they don’t want them organizing.

    2. If and when Biden packs the Supreme Court, comes after our gun rights, institutes Medicare for All, and hits us with the Green New Deal, it will mostly happen within his first 100 days in office.

      . . . and Biden’s first 100 days in office starts in a week and a half.

      1. Our state already blocked further Federal-Gov gun control by State legislation making it illegal for any police to attempt and carry out any federal gun control after the Brady Bill. I’d highly suggest any State that doesn’t want to jump on the Nazi camp bus do the same.

        1. Have you seen what Biden promised to do on his campaign website?

          Going down the list, he plans to ban “assault weapons”, force everyone who currently owns one to register it with the federal government, ban the sale of all guns and ammunition online, and, perhaps worst of all, he promised to institute a national “relinquishment” [confiscation] program in conjunction with local law enforcement.

          See it for yourself:


          Packing the Supreme Court may be key here.

          If the Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional, it doesn’t matter if it isn’t.

          1. P.S. Biden wants to bankrupt the gun companies by opening them up to liability claims when their guns are used, for instance, in mass shootings.

            “In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection”

            —-Joe Biden Campaign


            Of course, gun manufacturers will largely abandon making guns that could be construed as assault weapons if they can be held liable for the mass shootings perpetrated other people with their guns. It’s like suing a brewery for drunk driving accidents, but who cares if it’s right or wrong! The point is that it bankrupts the gun manufacturers who don’t fall in line.

            1. This really is horrifying, “by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check”…

      2. You aren’t wrong about what the Democrats plan to do. Biden also just said that he plans to destroy the NRA.

        But their actions right now could arguably make the goals more difficult to achieve. I think there is considerable overreach right now. Which makes me wonder if they are actually concerned about Trump doing something else before he leaves office. I don’t believe the Qanon conspiracies (there are people who think Trump is going to use the insurrection act to arrest everyone and get reelected. They are obviously delusional)
        But I still get the feeling that Democrats think Trump still might do something before he leaves office. Logic and experience dictates that they should be happily planning for the next administration and acting like everything is going to be great and that everyone is getting along, while secretly planning our demise. But they are acting unhinged and to me that indicates they are scared of something. But I don’t know what.

  22. Alt text for photo:

    “TDS is like a storm raging inside you”

  23. What would the number of illnesses been if we hadn’t run headlong into using reusable grocery bags?

    1. Maybe we can get some statistics this year to check. In my area reusable bags flipped from being mandatory to illegal and back again in 2020 as the governor temporarily overruled local ordinances requiring them. See how many people died of bag-borne contamination before and after the ban-ban.

  24. Baylen lost me at “legitimate”… Everyone not addled by altruism has known for two centuries the elections are crooked and rigged. Both halves of the Nixon-subsidized Kleptocracy resort to whatever it takes to keep voters from thinking of the initiation of force and fraud that is their only product. Inbred incompetence holds them back. That plus the fact there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two gangs make the ugly fact less depressing to contemplate even when unusually egregious.

  25. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page……………. CLICK ON THIS LINK TO GET USA JOB INFORMATION.

  26. you are right, FDA never made food any safer … they never made any law or check n balance, their work is even worse than before .. The Suicide Squad Savant Jacket

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.