Home > Food Safety, News > Three Reasons Your Food is Now Safer

Three Reasons Your Food is Now Safer

December 1st, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments
Pin It

If you ever got food poisoning that had you out of whack for a few hours, days, or something even worse, rejoice. Yesterday, the Senate passed an overhaul of the Food Safety Bill, for the first time since World War 2!

A lot has changed in the American food supply since those days. The FDA did not catch up, and has been unable to provide us the protection we deserve. With all the industrialization and consolidation of the food supply chain, there are many more touch points for a food to get contaminated from the field to the fork. Where once a small farm contamination would only cause a small number of people to get sick, today a single factory farm can ship out millions of potentially contaminated eggs before discovering it has a problem. Those millions of potentially poisonous eggs reach much farther than the local community.

It’s unfortunate that it took massive Peanut Butter and Egg recalls in the last 2 years, including hundreds of hospitalizations and even deaths to reach this day.

The bill, called S510, if all goes well in finalizing it into law, will hopefully be able to stop the next major outbreak.

What you need to know:

Key points that make our food safer now:

1) Prevention – Manufacturers will now have to adhere to stricter, more standardized food safety procedures that will decrease the chances of a contamination ever occurring.

2) Inspections – Most food manufacturers can’t even remember the last time an FDA representative rang their doorbell for an inspection of the facility. That’s because the cash strapped regulator did not have enough inspectors to go round. Now the FDA will receive more funding in order to bolster its facilities inspections capability. As you can imagine, when you are about to be audited, you make sure your facility is squeaky clean and top notch.

3) Recalls – it seems kind of ridiculous, but up till today, the FDA did not have the legal right to recall products deemed as potentially dangerous. The FDA could only ask or suggest a manufacturer voluntarily recall its products. Thankfully, the FDA will now be able to mandate product recalls when necessary.

There are many additional provisions, such as exemptions for small farms that can’t afford to implement costly safety protocols, but we won’t get into that today.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Categories: Food Safety, News Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Jenny Vitti

    I’m tentatively optimistic about this bill so far. I’m waiting to hear back from a friend who’s a scientist working on food safety for several major food companies to hear the food safety perspective, in addition to the consumer perspective.

    I do think it’s sort of amusing that most of the news sources that have this story refer to the recent egg recalls, but the bill doesn’t cover meat or eggs, since that’s the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture rather than the FDA.

    Hopefully the House will cooperate despite snags with taxes that the Senate added.

  • Sketch

    yeah, this is a GREAT law… tell me again what country you’re from? thats EXACTLY what the government needs – more ‘power’. more ‘authority’ – because they’ve done a HELLUVA job so far!

  • Carter Nevill

    A century ago, companies produced contaminated foods with unsafe fillers (sawdust, for example) in workplaces that exploited workers at best and killed them at worst. Children worked in these factories as well. Today, thanks to that evil scourge called government, our workers have protected rights and legal recourse against corporations, and we enjoy the luxury of some of the safest food on the planet.

    These laws are by far from perfect, and our government is once again showing favor for the corporation over the individual, but before we immediately brandish the fear of “big government” in regards to anything congress might try to do, we would do well to remember that government of the people is, and must be, for the people. Safety laws that ensure our freedom to live healthily have a place in our society, and are needed to protect us from large farm-factories that would cut any corner to maximize a profit.

    Just so long as these laws do not unfairly or disproportionately burden small, local farms, then I have no problem with agri-business being held accountable. We can argue that these laws will increase prices, but the fact is that subsidies and over-production of weak-nutrient foods have kept costs artificially low. This cost deflation has made it that much harder for the small farmer to compete, so if the small price hike makes the small farm more competitive, then we all win.

  • http://foodtrainers.blogspot.com Lauren Slayton

    Why don’t I feel safe?

  • http://www.lawranch.com Amy

    You guys must live in la-law land if you think this bill is good for the general people! Now we will have even more industrialized food. If this bill passes, it will be much harder for the small scale, local farmer at the farmer’s market.

    • http://www.fooducate.com/blog Editorial Staff

      @Amy – How is that if there are exclusions for small farms?

  • Brooke

    @Jenny – FDA does regulate shell eggs, but you are correct that using meat examples in news stories regarding S510 is silly. On a side note, USDA also regulates “liquid egg products” – go figure! I’m sure there is some random political story behind that.

    @Amy and Editorial Staff – Even before the Tester amendment was added, there were provisions for producers that sold directly to the consumer. The Tester amendment added small to medium size producers (I think its like >$500 K in sales?) who may not necessarily sell direct to consumers. Although, it was certainly sold to the public as though it was protecting the really small farms.

    But, hey, it’s not even signed into law yet. We’ll see what happens!

  • Brooke

    err, that is less than $500 K in sales.

  • Sketch

    @Carter Nevill

    yeah – and the government also said the air was safe to breathe after the towers fell. Go ahead – take a nice deep breath.

  • Brooke

    @Sketch – isn’t it great to live in a country where the government protects our freedom to express our opinions?

  • Sketch

    @Brooke
    do you mean the CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT?? sure. THIS law? not so much. Section 107 of the bill includes new fees classified as revenue-raising taxes, meaning that under the Constitution it should have originated in the House. but thats just a technicality, and says NOTHING of the WTO-adherence and codex alimentarius requirements (BOTH of which are unconstitutional).

    feel free to READ it.

  • http://www.farmigo.com Benzi

    Most small farms I am talking to are very alarmed by this bill. They think it will benefit mega farms & food distributors that have the resources to manage the new regulation and requirements. This bill could put a lot of small family farms out of business.

    • http://www.fooducate.com/blog Editorial Staff

      @Benzi would you like to elaborate??

  • Sketch

    Funny how there is absolutely NO mention of the constitution in this thing…

    pdf of the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s510es.txt.pdf

    Codex Alimentarius: (Sec. 305, page 201, lines 1-3)
    1(5) Recommendations on whether and how to
    2 harmonize requirements under the Codex
    3 Alimentarius.

    WTO: (Sec. 404, pages 239 & 240)
    20 SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREE
    21 MENTS.
    22 Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this
    23 Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the
    24 agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or
    –
    1 any other treaty or international agreement to which the
    2 United States is a party.

  • http://www.UrbanOrganicGardener.com Mike Lieberman

    I’m all about celebrating the small victories (the Tester Amendment being included), but not sure that giving government and the FDA more control is something to rejoice about.

    I think the implications of this could be much more than what we are seeing on the surface. The former VP of Monsanto is the FDAs Food Czar…cmon.

  • Brooke

    @Sketch

    An answer to this legal question may be the following from a food (safety) Czar of sorts, Bill Marler (quoted from his most recent marlerblog post):

    Per Mr. Stanton, “[a]ccording to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the “blue slip process” to block completion of the bill.”

    However, this possible squabble may well have an elegant, possible solution to funding for food safety legislation. As you might already know, in the House version of its food safety bill, H. R. 2749, lies Sec., 743. FACILITY REGISTRATION FEE.

    (b) Fee Amounts-

    (1) IN GENERAL- The registration fee under subsection (a) shall be–

    (A) for fiscal year 2010, $500;

    So, if the House is already charging $500 per year, per facility, why can not the House and Senate in conference agree that the $500 fee, (that S. 510 did not have in the first place) would replace S. 510 Sec. 107?

  • Sketch

    @Brooke
    They CAN agree, this (slight/technical) issue is that the senate tried to usurp constitutional mandates (probably the SMALLEST slight to the constitution they’ve done in a while). The OVERALL point that I was trying to make is that NO ONE – not ONE SINGLE person who voted FOR these bills (prior to reconciliation if it ever happens) took into account the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the bill.

    BOTH versions are ILLEGAL according to the constitution as they hold this country and its citizens liable to laws of OTHER governments (i.e. UN). WE (American citizens) didn’t get ANY say about the Codex or the WTO mandates, yet we have to abide by them? whats next? are you going to pay an ‘international tax’ for global warming? Its not a far step from socialism… give em’ an inch…

  • Monica

    In my opinion it’s worth it if it saves lives.

  • WilliamB

    @Sketch
    Read Article VI – properly approved treaties *are* the law of the land. Since evidence indicates you may be having trouble finding a copy to read, here is the relevant text
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

    So – what makes you think that the WTO is not “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States”?

  • Pat Young

    Just like the hospital inspections, the FDA inspections of factories should be unannounced, ie: no written notice of when they are coming :-) Pat in SNJ

  • http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com Nancy-The Frugal Dietitian

    Now FDA needs more power on Dietary Supplements – DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act) needs to be replaced with a stronger law.

  • JP

    Follow the money…

  • Sketch

    @WilliamB

    the phrase “under the Authority of the United States” requires the treaty itself to be constitutional. This bill cites treaties that force US citizens to act a certain way, consume certain things as levels not currently enforced (Codex), and do business in such a way that to this day is debated (commerce clause). However – the commerce clause will be defined when the health care law gets to the supreme court. Then we’ll see if the fed.gov really CAN control what we buy, sell, and consume.

    this bill also states penalties from crimes like food smuggling. WTF is THAT? WHO does that? no one. yet.

    Monica :
    In my opinion it’s worth it if it saves lives.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but some value their freedom and liberty more than their lives. 1984 – here we come – oops. too late. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia….

  • Mari

    @Sketch
    The freedom to have a poor quality source of food, and to allow industry, whose ONLY goal is to make money off the consumer, without regulation of our elected government, does NOT sound like freedom to me.

  • http://www.livingitupcornfree.com kc

    Why is no one scared stiff by the wording of this bill? The FDA would be granted the power to recall food that “they have reason to believe” is contaminated. This sounds like a wonderful weapon to use against one’s competition. An organic company taking over your territory? Just place a phone call to the FDA and have them undertake a massive recall. This could easily shut down small companies.

    This bill won’t save lives. More lives are lost every year from side effects and bad reactions to pharmaceuticals than food-borne illnesses and the FDA already has jurisdiction over drugs. This bill has nothing to do with keeping America safe from food-borne illness. Just take a look at the list of toxins on the FDA’s GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list to see what they are failing to protect us from right now EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO. http://www.fda.gov/food/foodingredientspackaging/ucm115326.htm (acetone, benzene, etc.)

    I am allergic to corn and have to rely on local small farmers that produce corn-free goods. The FDA is a vocal proponent of irradiated, sterilized, pasteurized, fortified, additive-laden industrial food. Guess what is used to fortify, irradiate, sterilize, food? Corn. If they are given more power, the very kind of food that keeps me alive will become illegal. It’s no wonder there is a provision for stiff penalties for “food smuggling”. They will need to fund the war on live food somehow, huh…

    If they get this blue slip problem worked out and pass this bill, I might as well start planning to move to another country. It’s already hard enough to live in this country with a corn allergy. This bill will make sure that my kind of food (pure, unadulterated, raw, unprocessed) food becomes extinct and is replaced with more industrial food that is chock full of corn “just to be safe”. HA!

  • carol

    Great photo! Mmmmm… factory food looks so appetizing.

  • Sketch

    @Mari

    Its FREEDOM of CHOICE. if you don’t want to eat that crap, fine don’t eat it. Its YOUR decision. NOT the government’s. The FDA has done absolutely NOTHING with what they have, and now they want MORE? tell me – what in this bill would prevent another salmonella outbreak? NOTHING! when it happened, I didn’t care because I have my OWN chickens. Under this bill, there is a strong possibility that my 6 chickens would come under the “control” of DHS for “national security reasons”. so I couldn’t give my eggs to my neighbors without “permission”. What’s next? are they going to “allow” us to vote? What exactly is it that you people STAND for? because so far, you’re falling for anything…

  • WilliamB

    @Sketch
    “the phrase “under the Authority of the United States” requires the treaty itself to be constitutional”

    Please cite your source (case, year, deciding court) for this novel interpretation. I am unfamiliar with this interpretation of the Constitution – and IAAL.

  • natalie

    anyone who thinks this bill is a good idea clearly did not take the time out to even read it.

  • Sandra Homemaker

    @Editorial Staff
    The Tester Amendment, which was finally included in S.510, excludes farmers who sell less than $500,000 worth of food each year from the more onerous paperwork and compliance burdens described in the bill. But this dollar amount is not indexed to inflation, meaning that as the U.S. dollar continues to lose value due to the Federal Reserve counterfeiting machine running at full speed (more “quantitative easing,” anyone?), food prices will continue to skyrocket — and this will shift even small family farms into the $500,000 sales range within just a few years. In fact, a single-family farm with just four people could easily sell $500,000 worth of fresh produce a year right now, even before inflation. Remember, $500,000 is not their profit, but rather the gross sales amount. The profits on that might be only $50,000 or even less.

    Furthermore, this $500,000 threshold means that small, successful farms that are doing well and would like to expand will refuse to hire more people or expand their operations. To avoid the tyranny of S 510, small farms will try to stay small, and that means avoiding the kind of business expansion that would create new jobs.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html

  • Sketch

    @WilliamB

    Please tell the board WilliamB, what exactly YOU think the “Authority of the United States” actually IS, if not the constitution? You must be either a lawyer and/or a senator to ask such an ignorant question. It is the Constitution that is the ONLY thing that gives the government its ‘authority’. If not, please enlighten the rest of us what laws we are under, if not the Constitution.

    UNDER THE AUTHORITY [i.e. Constitution] OF THE UNITED STATES. do i need to draw you a picture? I’ll go get my crayons.

  • Sketch

    @WilliamB

    a quick google – so I know you don’t really care and you’re just arguing to be a troll. go troll somewhere else if you’re not going to take the time to look.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

    I’m sure I can find more. I’m sure YOU can find ONE if you cared.

  • Sketch

    @WilliamB

    and lookie here, ANOTHER one:

    Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

    “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

  • Brooke

    Feeding trolls is never a good thing, particularly if you don’t include enough whole grains and fresh fruits & veggies. Perhaps you should scan the products with the Fooducate app to aid in your choice of troll feed.

  • Sketch

    @Brooke

    I’m guessing that troll DOES have a bar code, too.