Replies

From the Heritage Foundation (My summary)

Massive expansion of food regulation.

Food supply has never been safer, thanks to technological advances and market forces. Granting new powers to FDA will raise cost of food, but will not increase consumer protection.

Food Safety Modernization Act would:

1.) Authorize FDA to dictate how farmers grow fruits and vegetables, including rules governing soil, water, hygiene, packing, temperatures, and what animals may roam which fields and when
2.) Increase inspections of food “facilities” and tax them to do so
3.) Grant FDA unilateral authority to order recalls
4.) Generate inevitable costs to consumers
5.) Expand FDA regulatory reach
6.) Require $1.4 billion between 2011 and 2015, according to CBO
7.) Cost private sector (not calculated) $100s of millions annually

Incident rates of food-borne illness have declined for over a decade, in spite of higher consumption of the raw foods most often associated with food-borne illness: 51.2 confirmed cases food-borne bacterial contamination per 100,000 people in 1996. 34.8 cases per 100,000 people.

Centralized Authority Ineffective

No centralized authority can “effectively oversee” the food market. America’s food supply system is a complex network of more than 2.2 million farms, 28,000 food manufacturing facilities, 149,000 food and beverage stores, and 505,000 restaurants and similar establishments. This bill requires the EPA to “participate” in food safety, which will not improve regulatory efficiency. New regulations will not fill gaps in the food safety system. Meat, poultry, and dairy products—common sources of food-borne illness—are regulated by the USDA and are not addressed in this bill.

Regulatory Overreach

SB510 calls for increased inspections of food facilities, and voluminous record-keeping requirements, but even if the FDA increased inspections sevenfold, improvements in food safety would not come from intermittent visits by regulators or their scrutiny of paperwork. The FDA systematically failed to apply scientific principles to its policies, which have rendered its actions futile bureaucratic exercises. 36% of FDA managers believe the agency keeps pace with scientific advances GAO survey. Requirements will prove unaffordable to small farmers and local producers. All food “facilities”—including home-based businesses are required to do periodic hazard analyses and produce “risk-based preventive controls.” Food imports will come under more stringent inspection, but, FDA records show these do not carry higher risk of contamination. Of 285 recalls and allergy alerts issued in the first nine months of 2010, only 16 (6%) involved foreign manufacturers. This legislation creates three grant programs: to schools for allergy management ($107 million); food safety training, education, outreach, and technical assistance ($21 million); and food safety participation for states and tribes ($83 million).

More Powerful Forces

Science and technology have delivered the greatest advances in food safety. Pasteurization, water disinfection, and retort canning, freed consumers from food transmission of botulism, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and cholera. The food industry, not regulators, standardized quality grading and pathogen elimination processes. Irradiation and bioengineering helped destroy pathogens and extend product shelf-life. If not for alarmist opposition to both, consumer acceptance would be greater—bringing broader health benefits. Market forces (competition, brand-name value, monitoring by financial markets and insurers, and common law) are powerful drivers of food safety. There are bad actors in every pursuit, but considering the size of the market, Americans enjoy a remarkably safe food system. Food-borne illness will always be with us. We are enveloped by microbes, and more than 200 known diseases are transmitted through food. Some 5,000 deaths are related to food-borne diseases each year, according to the CDCl. The most severe cases occur in the very old, the very young, and those with compromised immune system function.

This bill contradicts the message sent by voters November 2: Americans do not want and cannot afford more unnecessary regulation and expansion of government. This proposal constitutes a costly and ineffective answer to a manufactured crisis.