May 9, 2007
Congress Looks at One Agency to Protect Food Supply
Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-CT), the chairperson of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), believes Americans are at risk because of what she sees as a “fragmented” system for protecting the nation’s food supply.
“I believe it’s time we now move to create a single food agency,” Rep. DeLauro said. She along with assistant Senate majority leader Richard Durbin (D-IL) have sponsored a bill to create a single agency with broad powers to inspect foods and ingredients as well as a mandate to act quickly in the case of problems.
Ms. DeLauro has been critical of the FDA for not moving quickly enough to deal with the melamine contamination. A report by Reuters said that the toxic ingredient passed off as a protein has been found in feed given to fish in domestic fish farms. According to the report, the tainted feed made its way from China to Canada before being fed to fish.
The assistant commissioner for food protection at the FDA, David Acheson, sought to allay concerns. “As with the situation with the poultry and hogs the (small) levels that we’re seeing in the fish meal are very comparable and… we do not believe there is any significant human health risk associated with consuming these fish,” he said.
Whether humans are at risk from melamine fed to fish, poultry or hogs, some believe that Reps. DeLauro and Durbin are on the right track with their proposal.
“This is not a new story about the need to modernize the system,” Michael Taylor, a University of Maryland professor, who held food safety offices at USDA and FDA, told Reuters. “We need a system that focuses on prevention.”
Discussion Questions: Would a single new food safety agency do a better job of protecting American consumers than the current system where responsibilities are spread over several agencies? Are the current challenges associated with protecting the nation’s food supply one of structure (number of agencies, etc.) or funding?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
It all depends on what that agency looks like; how well it is staffed; how many inspectors it has; etc., etc. One is no more a magic number for effective inspection than one hundred. Efficacy depends on execution.
The answer is not appointing a Food Czar or creating another government bureaucracy.
We need more forward thinking instead of larger thinking. The system needs to be brought into the 21st century through a new focus on the problems of food production and distribution in the current global economy.
It’s easy to pour money at a problem and then feel that you have done your job. This issue is more complicated than that. We need to put some creative energy and minds at work to determine what needs to be done and how best to go about it. While we are doing that, and knowing our government’s love to study things forever, we should give the FDA and the USDA enough money to be able to have a chance to do their jobs effectively in the interim.
I agree that it isn’t about how many agencies have authority but rather how effective they are. Whether it’s one or several, they need to have a plan or mission that is clearly understood and actionable with the resources to carry it out
Well, we have seen the efficiency of government agencies and we have seen the efficiency of business. Hmmmm…no contest. The answer doesn’t lie in more government. The answer lies putting responsibility in the hands of the retailers and manufacturers, who will bear the consequences of any negative press in any case.
Should all elected officials, food industry lobbyists and FDA staff members be required to eat uninspected foods 3 times a day? How about mandatory jail time and 7-figure fines for food executives who routinely don’t use reputable inspection procedures? How about 7-figure whistleblower rewards per incident? How about mandatory product liability insurance coverage of $100 million for every food processor and importer? Even if the FDA staff was doubled, the food supply would not be safe. And FEMA was created as a single agency out of several, so what good did that do?
Quick follow up to Mark’s comment, “all elected officials, food industry lobbyists and FDA staff members,” who eat three meals a day are already eating, “uninspected foods three times a day!”
I could go with one agency. Let’s let USDA, USDC, FDA and anyone else who is regulating anything ingested by humans or animals compete for control. Agencies catching problems would earn points, a bad accusation would remove double points. At then end of a year the agency’s point accumulation would be reviewed and new responsibility would be granted or responsibility removed depending on performance. I believe this system or a similar one would improve inspection as agencies would be incented to do their job or lose responsibility.
Of course, this will not be the course congress takes. The fact is that congress will do nothing but talk about the issue. No laws will be passed, no regulations will be written, no consolidation will take place.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
It all depends on what that agency looks like; how well it is staffed; how many inspectors it has; etc., etc. One is no more a magic number for effective inspection than one hundred. Efficacy depends on execution.
The answer is not appointing a Food Czar or creating another government bureaucracy.
We need more forward thinking instead of larger thinking. The system needs to be brought into the 21st century through a new focus on the problems of food production and distribution in the current global economy.
It’s easy to pour money at a problem and then feel that you have done your job. This issue is more complicated than that. We need to put some creative energy and minds at work to determine what needs to be done and how best to go about it. While we are doing that, and knowing our government’s love to study things forever, we should give the FDA and the USDA enough money to be able to have a chance to do their jobs effectively in the interim.
I agree that it isn’t about how many agencies have authority but rather how effective they are. Whether it’s one or several, they need to have a plan or mission that is clearly understood and actionable with the resources to carry it out
Well, we have seen the efficiency of government agencies and we have seen the efficiency of business. Hmmmm…no contest. The answer doesn’t lie in more government. The answer lies putting responsibility in the hands of the retailers and manufacturers, who will bear the consequences of any negative press in any case.
Should all elected officials, food industry lobbyists and FDA staff members be required to eat uninspected foods 3 times a day? How about mandatory jail time and 7-figure fines for food executives who routinely don’t use reputable inspection procedures? How about 7-figure whistleblower rewards per incident? How about mandatory product liability insurance coverage of $100 million for every food processor and importer? Even if the FDA staff was doubled, the food supply would not be safe. And FEMA was created as a single agency out of several, so what good did that do?
Quick follow up to Mark’s comment, “all elected officials, food industry lobbyists and FDA staff members,” who eat three meals a day are already eating, “uninspected foods three times a day!”
I could go with one agency. Let’s let USDA, USDC, FDA and anyone else who is regulating anything ingested by humans or animals compete for control. Agencies catching problems would earn points, a bad accusation would remove double points. At then end of a year the agency’s point accumulation would be reviewed and new responsibility would be granted or responsibility removed depending on performance. I believe this system or a similar one would improve inspection as agencies would be incented to do their job or lose responsibility.
Of course, this will not be the course congress takes. The fact is that congress will do nothing but talk about the issue. No laws will be passed, no regulations will be written, no consolidation will take place.