Editor and General Manager
Each year, 48 million Americans suffer from a foodborne illness. Of that number, 120,000 will require hospitalization and 3000 will die, according to 2011 estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. You would think that with 15 government agencies having oversight responsibilities for some aspect of food safety this would be avoidable.
Primary oversight is split between the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA. While the agencies have a wide footprint and some clout, there is a reasonable argument to be made that some tougher enforcement rules would be useful with a few recalcitrant producers. (Numerous state agencies monitor and regulate food safety as well.)
President Obama’s 2016 budget seeks to consolidate food safety oversight and regulation within a single government agency. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) have joined in this effort, and introduced the Safe Food Act of 2015, which would, among other things, merge food safety oversight into one agency. It’s feasible that tighter coordination could result in more effective oversight and higher levels of consumer safety.
Apparently the food industry is against this reorganization, and is expressly concerned about the rigors of increased agency vigilance. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan) has signaled his opposition as well—“In this tough economy, the last thing producers and consumers need is more red tape.”
If that’s his concern, in this tough economy the last thing consumers need is more red meat. But the question should not be whether one agency or two or 15 is best, or whether government or industry is the best arbiter. Left unwatched, some producers will sacrifice safety for profit; oversight, by a government agency, is a necessity.
According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA, foodborne illnesses cost the U.S. about $15 billion a year, a figure that includes lost wages, lost productivity and costly medical care. You can buy plenty of food safety for that kind of money.
It’s important to note that a good deal of foodborne illness could be prevented if safe handling procedures were followed during meal preparation. The consumer plays a key role here, as it is probably impossible to completely eliminate contamination in places where thousands of animals are being killed, eviscerated, butchered and packaged, or where tons of produce are being processed. For the most part, information on safe food handling is readily available and fairly widely ignored.
It would be welcome to see elected officials earnestly engage in a debate about public safety and what type of agency would best provide food surveillance. It is important that they seek and rely upon the input of food safety researchers and agencies and support research efforts related to all aspects of improving food production and preparation. It would be useful for oversight agencies to seek ways to better, more consistently communicate safe-handling procedures to the public and to food service workers. A campaign slogan for public office candidates in 2016: a chicken and a meat thermometer in every pot.
Steve Ernst is Editor and General Manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]