Friday, December 3, 2010

S 510 and you. What does food safety modernization mean?

So some big news from this past week, the US Senate approved a bill called the Food Safety Modernization Act. That's right, our government, while being stymied by the childish insistence of the GOP to reinstate the Bush-era taxcuts for businesses over $200,000, has actually done something! The Senate voted 73 to 25 to approve of S 510 this past week, a major move in the food industry. I know this may come as a bit of a shock, but I'm totally thrilled! Yippee! I'm excited about something the government has done in the food industry!

Basically, the bill gives the FDA more power over assessing and controlling the safety standards of our foods. Should the bill pass all the way through, the FDA will have the power to force food recalls on private companies, instead of waiting for the producer to do it themselves. Based on how much I trust our nation's biggest industrial food producers (see my post on the recent nationwide egg recall), I am completely in support of letting the government impose safety regulations on these folk, make them write out full safety plans, and inspect their facilities more than once (if that) per year!

There has been significant outcry against this bill. As a matter of fact, I myself called up my congresspeople to express my concern that this bill could be potentially devastating to my small local farmers, farmer's markets, roadside stands, etc. Much to my delight, there is a provision in the bill that says that these rules and restrictions only apply to producers who have more than $500,000 in sales every year. Here is a direct excerpt from the text of the bill showing this.



Somehow, I still hear conservative pundits claiming that S 510 is in essence, the government taking control of our food. The way I see it, S 510 is a great motivator for small local farmers. Doesn't seem a little like a food-system that supports the small, local farmer/producer is actually a way to encourage us to take our food back into our own hands?

Our Nation's history does not demonstrate that the markets are very good at regulating food safety. Again, I refer to Upton Sinclair and The Jungle, and while I'm on the topic of history, lets consider that the FDA, officially founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, was specifically focused on food producers who were providing 'adulterated' food (meaning things like they used dye to make the meat look fresher, they used fillers to increase the weight of their products, and they used "filthy, decomposed, or putrid substances" in their products). Reading this out of context, one might think, 'Gee, its great that we've come so far since then,' when in reality, the only things that have changed are the names. Today, our food is 'adulterated' by E. Coli (which lives in chicken shit), and excessive amounts of rBGH (aka chemically induced overproduction).

I say its about time someone stepped in to ensure that our food is safe, and that we can comfortably call it 'food.' In response to those who are crying out that the government is taking control of our food, I say I'd rather have the feds in charge than the producers. I trust my government more than I trust the market. Or is there even any difference nowadays anyway?

However, amidst all the celebrating, leave it to the government to mess it up. Apparently, the Senate made some changes to the bill that would add some taxes somewhere, and constitutionally, only the House is allowed to write taxes into bills. Sadly, S 510 is going to have to run its course again. Maybe it'll make it through twice, who knows...

In conclusion, I recommend that we, as eaters, keep ourselves informed about this bill. There is a lot of uproar about this bill, and I'm not completely sold on it just yet. There is a part of me that is concerned about certain parts of the bill, like where it says that the feds have the right to impose martial law on an area where there has been some kind of contamination and where they perceive a risk that the contaminant might spread... and of course, the conspiracy theorists are having a ball with all of the Orwelian implications that can be inferred from this bill.

Fortunately for me, I will be able to continue buying fresh, local, organic food with or without this bill. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled and my fingers crossed for the rest of us.

4 comments:

  1. C,
    Check out the post below for some takes on why this bill can cause trouble. I think it will all depend on how it gets enforced but it may cause trouble if they continue giving smaller producers a hard time. His posts before and after this one are also on the same topic.
    http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/11/30/if-youre-in-the-food-business-better-begin-preparing-now-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the reference John! I really appreciate the points that David Gumpert has brought to the table, though I'll admit his tone is a little apocalyptic... and yes, there is some long-term ambiguity as to what this bill will mean for every small farmer out there. I'd refer you to a great discussion going on over at the Grist (http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-03-the-real-nitty-gritty-on-small-farms-and-food-safety-bill). Gumpert is also participating in the conversation here, but with a little less of an Orwellian focus. Basically, the way I see it, the Tester Amendment, which makes the exemptions for small farms, is enough of an indication to me that the gov't is actually considering the small farmer. This gives me hope that the FDA won't be sending 'death squads' to put me in prison for 10 years because I have a garden in my backyard. (actually, I think it's totally outrageous that people are out there making claims that the government is actually going to do something like that... and honestly, I have a hard time reading what the actual concern is in those kind of statements)

    Bottom line for me is that I want someone other than the food producers to be regulating themselves. While the FDA has not done a great job at keeping food safe in recent years (and even recent months!), I'd still rather see them visit the Peanut Corporation of America facility more than once every ten years. If this is what it takes to do that, I'm for it.

    I think that Gumpert is looking at the cheese for the holes, and he is bound to find them, especially in a politic-ese language that leaves LOTS of room for interpretation. While I do recognize some potential problems with S510, I believe that the benefit outweighs the cost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agreed Caleb,
    While it seems there is a track record of the FDA not fully understanding the ins and outs of the industries they regulate (especially on smaller farms) it's better than the track record of industries trying to regulate themselves.

    I have just started reading some of Gumpert's work and so far the tone is quite apocalyptic as you mentioned. I hope to find at least some compelling arguments despite the nature of how he conveys his ideas. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this post. I had seen this in the news but didn't have the bandwidth to dig in and compare and contrast it with what I already new about the topic and the details of this bill.

    I agree that there is role for the government, and it often gets confused, ignored, and/or corrupted. Regardless of how well it is designed a law is only as good as the people enforcing it, and no law is going to appease everyone. But it is encouraging to hear about the government doing the work it is supposed to do, in a way that is comprehensive and makes a good amount of sense.

    ReplyDelete