FSnet Feb. 2/07
U.S.
Government of Accountability Office
Huge
response to Kane alert of possible exposure to hepatitis A
Cleveland
Hilton reports worker case of hepatitis A
Autopsy
performed on Richland E. coli victim
Lab finds
norovirus in samples
Inspections
back for farmers' markets, charity events
Students
fall sick
Urgent: over
400 stricken with food poisoning in Chile
Czech dairy
source of listeria bacteria
Package of
major food safety bills introduced by California State Senator Dean Florez
Raw milk
can be poison
Whole Foods
Market is voluntarily recalling 6,000 jars of 365 Everyday Value Kalamata Olive
Tapenade
Something
in the water
The Vocal
Point: The Big Lie about our dirt-cheap food supply
We can do
better than government inspection of meat
Withdrawal
of direct final rule
how to subscribe
U.S.
Government of Accountability Office
GAO-07-310
http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-07-310&accno=A65424
GAO's audits and evaluations identify federal programs and operations that, in
some cases, are high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste,
abuse, and mismanagement. In recent years, GAO also has identified high-risk
areas to focus on the need for broad-based transformations to address major
economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. Since 1990, GAO has
periodically reported on government operations it has designated as high risk.
In this 2007 update for the 110th Congress, GAO presents the status of high-risk
areas identified in 2005 and new high-risk areas warranting attention by
Congress and the executive branch. Lasting solutions to high-risk problems offer
the potential to save billions of dollars, dramatically improve service to the
public, strengthen confidence and trust in the performance and accountability of
the U.S. government, and ensure the ability of government to deliver on its
promises.
In its January 2005 update, GAO identified 25 high-risk areas and, in March
2006, added a 26th area. Since 2005, progress has been made in all areas,
although the extent varies by area. Both the executive branch and Congress have
shown a continuing commitment to addressing high-risk challenges and taken steps
to help correct several of their root causes. High-risk areas were also among
the suggested areas for oversight for the 110th Congress that GAO recently
provided to congressional leadership. Sufficient progress has been made to
remove the high-risk designation from two areas: U.S. Postal Service
transformation efforts and long-term outlook and HUD single-family mortgage
insurance and rental housing assistance programs. Other areas made significant
progress, but not enough to be removed from the list this cycle. Continued
attention from the executive branch and Congress is needed to make additional
progress in other high-risk areas. This year, GAO is designating three new
high-risk areas. … The third area being designated as high risk involves
federal oversight of food safety because of risks to the economy and to public
health and safety. Agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the
United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually.
Any food contamination could undermine consumer confidence in the government's
ability to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply, as well as cause severe
economic consequences. The current fragmented federal system has caused
inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of
resources. GAO has recommended that Congress consider a fundamental
re-examination of the system and other improvements to help ensure the rapid
detection of and response to any accidental or deliberate contamination of food
before public health and safety is compromised.
Huge
response to Kane alert of possible exposure to hepatitis A
02.feb.07
Chicago Tribune
William Presecky
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070201hepatitis,1,1786750.story?coll=chi-newsroom-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Kane County health officials were cited as saying Thursday that more than 2,800
people who said they patronized a restaurant in Geneva where an employee was
diagnosed last month with hepatitis A have been treated for potential exposure
to the infection.
The story explains that a free two-week clinic set up by the Health Department
in Aurora is scheduled to conclude Friday evening, and that so far, there is no
sign the infection has been spread by the Houlihan's Restaurant employee
diagnosed with it.
Cleveland
Hilton reports worker case of hepatitis A
02.feb.07
Cleveland Plain Dealer (OH)
Harlan Spector
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1170409395299160.xml&coll=2
Cleveland Health Director Matt Carroll was cited as saying that health officials
advised 85 employees at the Hilton Garden Inn in downtown Cleveland to consider
preventive treatment with an injection of antibodies after a food-service
employee was diagnosed with hepatitis A, adding, "We don't have anything
beyond the one confirmed case."
George M. Iannacone, manager of the Gateway district hotel, was cited as saying
that a letter from the health department went to several hundred recent patrons
of the hotel restaurant who may have been exposed. The letter advised patrons to
talk to their doctors about treatment with immune globulin, a preparation of
antibodies that is effective up to two weeks after exposure.
Autopsy
performed on Richland E. coli victim
01.feb.07
KNDU-TV (WA)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16933639/
RICHLAND, Wash. - Investigators are closer to knowing what killed a Richland
woman who got E. coli during a national spinach scare.
A forensic pathologist has performed an autopsy on the body of 83-year-old Betty
Howard. But before the Benton County Coroner determines the cause of death, he
said tissue samples still need to be analyzed.
Lab
finds norovirus in samples
01.feb.07
Klamath Falls Herald and News (OR)
Laura McVicker
http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2007/02/01/news/local_news/local3.txt
Norovirus was, according to this story, identified as a possible culprit behind
the illnesses of at least five customers at a Klamath Falls Mexican restaurant
that closed Tuesday.
Delbert Bell, environmental health director of the Klamath County Public Health
Department, was cited as saying that Sergio's Dos Mexican Restaurant, 4650 S.
Sixth St., opened Wednesday afternoon after rigorous cleaning and a training
session with public health officials on safe food handling.
Results from the Oregon State Public Health Laboratory in Portland showed five
samples contained the virus, though Bell was hesitant to name it as the cause,
stating, "It's conceivable it is and it's conceivable it isn't."
Between Jan. 22 and Jan. 27, more than 80 customers became ill, reporting
symptoms of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, chills, headaches, fatigue and muscle
aches. Two people were hospitalized, although they had conditions that
exacerbated the illness, Bell said.
Bell didn't want to blame poor handling practices of Sergio's as a reason for
the outbreak, adding that the closing wasn't because of a violation.
Inspections
back for farmers' markets, charity events
02.feb.07
Belleville Intelligencer (ON)
Barry Ellsworth
Church suppers, farmers' markets and charity barbecues are, according to this
story, back under inspection regulations at the local health unit.
The rules appeared to be erased last June when the province exempted the
aforementioned inspections under the Food Premises Regulation.
Dr. Richard Schabas, medical officer of health at the Hastings and Prince Edward
Counties Health Unit, was cited as saying the Health Protection and Promotion
Act places a "statutory obligation on medical officers of health to inspect
or cause the inspection of all food premises ..." which means, the
inspections of farmers' markets, church suppers and charity barbecues are back
on and were, Schabas said, never off.
"There wasn't an edict that they were exempt from inspection," he said
Thursday.
However, the health protection act is more lenient than the Food Premises
Regulation so that inspectors do not have to apply the same rigid rules as they
do to restaurants, which are considered high risk for food poisoning.
"There's more discretion," Schabas said. "We've got a lot more
discretion."
Students
fall sick
02.feb.07
The Vancouver Province
PRINCE GEORGE - Six school children failed to turn up at an elementary school
after 137 kids were fed undercooked chicken for lunch.
Northern Health Authority Chief Medical officer Dr. David Bowering was cited as
saying the parents of the 137 children were notified after authorities learned
the catering company had sent undercooked chicken to the school cafeteria.
Bowering said six children failed to turn up at school and their parents
reported various stomach ailments which could be linked to eating the chicken.
However, he said authorities are still trying to determine if there is a link
between the reported illness and the fact the kids ate the chicken.
The restaurant that supplied food to Pinewood Elementary school voluntarily
suspended its operation.
Urgent:
over 400 stricken with food poisoning in Chile
01.feb.07
Xinhua News Agency (China)
SANTIAGO -- More than 400 people have been stricken with food poisoning after
eating raw or undercooked sea food in Chile's fifth region since Nov. 20, the
region's Health Ministry said on Thursday.
Czech
dairy source of listeria bacteria
01.feb.07
Playfuls.com - Targu Mures,Romania
http://www.playfuls.com/news_004402_Czech_Dairy_Source_Of_Listeria_Bacteria.html
Prague Radio was cited as reporting that a recent outbreak of illness caused by
dangerous listeria bacteria originated in a Czech dairy plant that has stopped
production.
Michael Vit, the Czech Republic's chief public health officer was cited as
saying Thursday the food contaminated with listeria was traced to only one
plant, whose name and location he did not disclose.
Last year, 80 people were diagnosed with listeriosis and 13 died, the radio
said.
It was five times more infected people than in 2005.
Package
of major food safety bills introduced by California State Senator Dean Florez
01.feb.07
California Progress Report
Frank D. Russo
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/02/package_of_majo.html
Senator Dean Florez announced the introduction of "The California Produce
Safety Action Plan" this morning in the Capitol. In a serious mood, Florez
stood in front of photographs of those who had died of E, coli outbreaks.
Last year, Florez held a hearing of the Senate Governmental Organization
Committee in the wake of September’s E. coli outbreak linked to California
spinach, identifying a number of vulnerabilities to the food supply.
The three bills he has introduced, SB 200, 201, and 202 are designed to address
those shortcomings, from water used to irrigate crops to the process for tracing
the source of an outbreak. They are not yet in print.
Florez was quoted as saying, "While these outbreaks may have dealt a
temporary blow to consumer confidence, we have an opportunity here to take what
we’ve learned from the experience and create a food safety system that is
second to none, just like California produce."
The first measure gives the Department of Health Services (DHS) the authority it
needs to effectively manage future outbreaks and best protect the public from
threats like E. coli, such as allowing DHS to recall, quarantine or destroy
tainted produce. Under the measure, growers of leafy greens would be required to
get a license through DHS, just like processors already do. During the licensing
process, growers would have to identify for DHS any risk factors at their
growing locations, such as proximity to wildlife which could track E. coli into
crop fields. The bill also creates an inspection program, funded by the
licensing fees, which will send inspectors to farms who will conduct testing of
water, soil and produce as they deem necessary.
The second bill calls on DHS to establish “good agricultural practices,” or
GAP, which growers of leafy greens must follow, governing everything from water
and fertilizer use to issues of sanitation and flooding. The bill prohibits the
use of creek water for irrigation or raw manure for fertilizer and requires that
water used for growing leafy greens be tested every two weeks during the growing
season and immediately prior to harvest. Growers must maintain records of these
practices, which must be reviewed prior to transporting the leafy greens.
The third measure in the series requires DHS to establish the minimum
requirements of a traceback system which will allow the speedy tracking of leafy
greens from farm to processor, to distributor, to retailer. An expedited
traceback system would allow DHS to quickly trace contaminated greens to their
precise source, preventing a repeat of September when all spinach was suspect
and all growers took the hit because consumers did not immediately know which
produce they could trust.
Raw
milk can be poison
01.feb.07
Central Kentucky News Journal - Campbellsville,KY
http://www.cknj.com/articles/2007/02/01/opinion/letters%20to%20the%20editor/01letter.txt
William R Henning, Professor Emeritus of Animal and Food Science, Penn State
University, writes that as a University of Kentucky graduate in animal and food
science, he feels compelled to answer some of the illogical and unscientific
arguments for drinking raw milk.
No, raw milk will not cause widespread disease and death and will not ruin
agriculture. However, as a scientist who has had a career working on food safety
and with food science, this whole argument is an argument against everything I
was ever taught. Especially if it is fueled and fomented by a group that
consists of anti-government, anti-technology, anti-business radicals who use
feelings and testimonials to make their decisions.
We know that raw milk can contain many different pathogens, including Listeria,
Salmonella, E coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis,
Brucella and others. Most of these will not kill people, but we know that in
other states raw milk has killed children. Does it happen often? No, but who is
going to tell the parents who lost their child that it is not that dangerous
because it doesn't happen often? Who is willing to take that risk?
Even though I grew up on raw milk, I certainly would not feed it to my
grandchildren. For one thing, the pathogenic, toxin forming E coli did not exist
as such when I grew up. It is a killer to children because it forms a toxin and
shuts down the kidneys. This is a terrible way to see children die. It is found
widely in the environment. I have found it in whitetail deer, starlings, cow
water tanks, raccoons, opossums and it is certainly found widely in cattle.
It is easily killed by cooking, including pastuerization. If we won't believe
the science, why don't we just shut down the University of Kentucky College of
Agriculture? If we won't believe what the scientists say, we might as well save
the money and just let the public figure it out for themselves. This is not what
I want for my family and for the future of our citizens. Follow the law, there
is a scientific reason for it.
Whole
Foods Market is voluntarily recalling 6,000 jars of 365 Everyday Value Kalamata
Olive Tapenade
31.jan.07
Whole Foods Market Media Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Austin, TX -- Effective immediately, Whole Foods Market
is voluntarily recalling 6,000 jars of a 32,000-jar lot of its 365 Everyday
Value Kalamata Olive Tapenade because the product may contain glass fragments,
which may cause injury if ingested.
The code for the product is found on the top of the lid and the number is: B.B.
14/09/2009 L 257/06 with time stamps ranging from 14:00 through 16:00. Jars with
time stamps within this range should be discarded and not consumed. The recalled
product was distributed nationwide to Whole Foods Market stores. It comes in an
8.12 ounce jar with a purple and brown label. The barcode number (UPC) for the
product is 0009948241757. The decision for the recall came after the Company
received two reports in Texas of glass being found in the product.
Customers can return the affected product to their local store for a full
refund. Any questions or concerns may be directed to Whole Foods Market at
512/542-0656 or PrivateLabel.CustomerService@WholeFoods.com.
Something
in the water
02.feb.07
Consumer Online - Wellington, New Zealand
http://www.consumer.org.nz/newsitem.asp?docid=2849&category=News&topic=Drinking%20water%20safety
In 2005 102,000 people were served by registered supplies with water containing
unacceptable levels of E. coli.
84,000 were exposed to greater risk of disease as the supplier did not take
immediate steps to correct the problem once E. coli was found.
In 111 schools the water supply was contaminated with E. coli during 2005.
These are just three of the findings of the Ministry of Health's Annual Review
of the Microbiological and Chemical Quality of Drinking Water in New Zealand.
The document covers the 2005 year and was published on 30 January 2007.
The review measures water quality against the Drinking Water Standards for New
Zealand: 2000.
The standards give top priority to microbiological quality because bacteria and
protozoa can cause rapid and major outbreaks of illness. The bacterium
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is used as an indicator that the water has been
contaminated by human, bird or animal faeces and water providers are required to
check for its presence.
The protozoan cryptosporidium is also used as a measure of a water's safety but
it's difficult to check for its presence as it is not evenly distributed through
water. Providers must have systems in place to monitor water quality and to
remove these contaminants from the water supply.
Approximately 76 percent of New Zealanders received water that has been shown to
meet the requirements for protection against E. coli, and 71 percent received
water that met the requirements for cryptosporidium. Most large communities -
towns with more than 5,000 people - had water supplies which met these
requirements, but many smaller communities were supplied with water which was
not microbiologically safe.
Unsafe water
Twenty four percent (980,000) of New Zealanders are supplied with water that
isn't known to be safe to drink.
Of those, nearly half, (460,000) get their drinking-water from rooftop tanks or
bores. Their supplies aren't included in the Review, but a recent Massey
University study found that more than half of 560 samples from private rooftop
supplies were contaminated by faecal matter.
Two percent - 102,000 - received water that had been contaminated by E. coli.
Most lived in small communities but serious failures occurred. In Blenheim and
North End Oamaru too many samples were contaminated with E. coli, and in Kawerau
and Matamata the suppliers failed to take appropriate action once E. coli was
found.
Most of the rest had water that didn't comply with the standard because it was
not checked often enough to show that it was safe from E. coli.
It's a concern that 145 small supplies - including schools, motor camps, maraes,
hotels and lodges - stopped monitoring their water quality in 2005. Forty-one of
them had been found to have E. coli in their water during 2004. Some were maraes
and schools and schools serving very small numbers, but among them were hotels
and camps - Tolaga Bay Motor Camp, Punakaiki Rocks Hotel, Purau Motor Camp -
where visitors might not be aware of the risks in drinking the water.
Water in schools
Many schools have inadequate treatment or monitoring. There are 624 schools with
their own water supply, but only 81 provided adequate protection against E.
coli.
Children are especially vulnerable to infections so it is important they have
access to safe water. Boards of Trustees are responsible for testing water
supplies and for minor upgrades, ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Where
a major upgrade is necessary, the Ministry of Education will carry out the work
under its capital costs programme.
Hospitals and health service providers
Hospital patients are another group at high risk of water-borne infections. Of
the nine healthcare providers with their own water supply, Princess Margaret
Hospital in Christchurch and Ashburton Hospital had inadequate monitoring and
the Waiheke Health Trust supply was found to contain E. coli.
We say
It's encouraging that the proportion of New Zealanders supplied with safe
drinking-water continues to increase - up two percent from 2004. But in 2005
there was an increase in the number of people in supplies that were not
monitored, and a large increase in those with supplies where appropriate action
wasn't taken after E. coli was found.
Unless it's taken from an enclosed aquifer, such as the one which supplies
Christchurch, New Zealand groundwater can be assumed to be contaminated by
faecal matter. Drinking-water suppliers should treat and monitor their water to
make sure it is safe, or warn consumers of the risks.
The
Vocal Point: The Big Lie about our dirt-cheap food supply
02.feb.07
Meatingplace.com
Dan Murphy
One of the most enduring truisms repeated religiously by media is the annual
statistics about how affordable food is for the average American family.
As it does every year, USDA recently distributed a glowing news release claiming
that, "On average, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their
disposable income on food, [meaning] it takes only about 36 days for most
Americans to earn enough money to buy groceries for the entire year."
As a factoid accepted without questioning by both media and activists, it's
right up there with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's assertion that,
"Foodborne diseases cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations,
and 5,000 deaths each year."
You'd think such numbers were etched onto stone tablets the way reporters
reverently quote them in every story related to the topic.
(But in all such stories repeating that food-safety stat, none ever mentions
CDC's own calculations, which appear exactly one sentence later on its Web site,
acknowledging that, "Unknown agents account for 62 million illnesses,
265,000 hospitalizations and 3,200 deaths." In other words, the pathogens
most often implicated in meat-industry critiques are officially accountable for
less than 20 percent of the problem).
As for how cheap our food (allegedly) is, anyone who's spent more than 60
seconds in a supermarket lately could testify that the credibility of USDA's
"official data" ranks right up there with Barry Bonds' professions of
innocence about steroid use.
USDA even ups the believability ante by insisting that, "The percentage of
disposable personal income spent for food has declined over the last 37 years,
[a] decrease . . . especially interesting when you consider that Americans today
buy more expensive convenience food items for preparation at home, as well as
more food away from home."
Yes, it's especially interesting.
And wildly inaccurate.
The easiest way to deconstruct this "food costs less than 10 percent of
your income" fallacy is to simply review the arithmetic. USDA uses Bureau
of Labor Statistics numbers and cost-of-living indices in its calculations, and
that's where the problem begins.
For example: In 2004 (the most recent data available), USDA estimated that the
total U.S. "disposable personal income" — which excludes employer
contributions to Social Security, Medicare and retirement and pension plans, by
the way — was $9.04 trillion. If you add up the estimates of what Americans
spent on food at retail ($524.3 billion) and foodservice ($369.8 billion) in
2004, it totals $894.1 billion. Voila! That's 9.9 percent of the U.S. disposable
income spent on food.
But if you divide that nine trillion-plus by the 300 million people living in
the United States, you get an average of $30,126 worth of disposable income for
every person in the country. While that might be true as a mathematical average,
it would mean that the mythical family of four (two adults and two children), on
which USDA bases its calculations of how much we allegedly spend on food, would
have an "average" disposable income of $120,506.64.
But the latest U.S. Census Bureau data state that, "The real U.S. median
income of households in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and
2005, from $45,817 to $46,326" (from the report, "Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005").
In other words, although the "average" annual household income – a
number that averages what you, me and Bill Gates collectively earn — exceeds
one-twenty large, the "median" income, which is what real families at
the midpoint of the income scale actually earn, is only about one-third of that
total.
It gets worse
For that family of four, which USDA defines as a couple, 20 to 50 years and two
children, 2 to 5 years old, weekly food costs supposedly range from $104.50 a
week, or $5,434 for the year (the "Thrifty" plan) to $198.90, or
$10,342.80 for the year (the "Liberal" plan).
If we consider the "Moderate" plan in between those two, USDA
estimated that a family of four would spend $160.60 a week on food, or $8,135.20
for a year. Of course, that only includes spending for food products purchased
at retail, not meals purchased for eating away from home. If we accept USDA's
estimate that 58 percent of household food budgets are spent buying food
products for home preparation, then we would have to add another 42 percent, or
$5694.64, to the family food budget.
That would total $13,829.84 per year per family for food.
If the presumption is that "less than 10 percent of disposable income goes
to food costs," that would mean the average family of four has more than
$130,000 in annual disposable income. Even if we limit the statement to
"food purchased at stores for preparation and consumption at home," as
USDA does, that means the mythical family of four would have $56,946.40 in
disposable income.
Which, as already noted, is 22 percent above the actual U.S. median income.
And that doesn't even address the definition of "disposable." Census
data represent earned income, and last time I checked, there's a big difference
between the top and bottom lines of on most paychecks.
Either way, USDA's calculations are preposterous. If you limit food costs only
to food bought at supermarkets for home meal preparation, you've just excluded a
huge segment of the consumer food dollar as it's actually allocated by real
people living lifestyles that include significant spending on restaurant, fast
food and take-out foods.
And if you include the total food purchases consumers make — not just what's
in their shopping carts — then the income levels needed to even pretend we're
only spending 9.9 percent of our incomes on food are patently absurd.
Why does this matter? Why can't we just smirk, acknowledge that all agencies —
public and private — love to spin the stats and go back to what we were doing
before we skimmed through yet another version of USDA's self-serving nonsense?
Well, this annual charade does matter, for three reasons.
First, call me a crazy journalist, but I think we deserve truth and accuracy in
official statistics. Government ought to be giving us data to help us understand
the realities that influence our decision-making as citizens, not crafting fairy
tales out of whole cloth.
Second, if we were to believe that we devote less than 10 percent of our
household budgets to food procurement, that would make food production and
processing a lot less important as a national policy challenges than such issues
as energy costs, transportation and health care. In fact, food security is one
of the most fundamental issues any nation faces, and USDA's rose-colored
assessment obscures the priority food and agriculture ought to receive at the
federal level.
Finally, and most importantly, if food is truly as cheap as USDA's economists
would have us believe, that would mean our food and farm policies are working.
And they're not.
The recent series of farm bills have been little more than bloated giveaways to
a handful of multinationals to subsidize production of commodity exports. The
Doha Round of WTO trade talks fell apart last year in large measure because of
the massive ag subsidies USDA provided, not to the larger farm community, but to
Big Ag and corporate farm operations.
Equally important, other major agricultural challenges, such as land-use
policies, irrigation resources and soil conservation — not to mention the
long-term challenges of biofuel crops versus feed grains, rural economic
development and sustainable food production — continue to be seriously
underfunded.
The bottom line is that we do not enjoy "cheap food." Our farm
policies need serious revision. As a nation, we need to start confronting and
dealing with some serious food-related challenges that will ultimately affect
everyone from farmers to producers to packers, processors, retailers and
foodservice operators.
And, oh yes — everyone who buys and consumes food.
It doesn't help when USDA plays games with the numbers to maintain the illusion
that all's well with food production and we should all just go back to worrying
about spending the other 90.1 percent of our disposable income.
We
can do better than government inspection of meat
01.feb.07
Foundation for Economic Education
E. C. Pasour, Jr.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3375
Last year’s news reports of tainted beef focused public attention on the
safety of the meat supply. In August 1997, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
forced Hudson Foods to recall 25 million pounds of hamburger meat produced at
the firm’s state-of-the-art plant in Nebraska. The nation’s largest beef
recall occurred after several Colorado consumers became sick from hamburgers
linked to E. coli contamination.
Examples of illness rooted in unsafe meat are not isolated incidents. Bad or
undercooked meat causes an estimated 4,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses
annually, according to the federal government’s Centers for Disease
Control.[1] Moreover, a single incident of contaminated meat has the potential
to affect large numbers of people. In 1993, five hundred people became ill and
four children died in the Pacific northwest as a result of eating tainted
hamburgers.
Illness and death caused by bad meat (whether tainted or undercooked) inevitably
evoke calls for more government regulation. It is ironic that increased
government intervention is viewed as an antidote to tainted meat, despite the
federal government’s long-standing responsibility for meat inspection in the
United States. Indeed, the Hudson Foods incident occurred only a year after
President Clinton announced the most sweeping changes in the government’s
meat-inspection system. Moreover, a federal inspector was based at the Hudson
Foods plant to check the plant’s procedures daily.
Chronic problems related to meat inspection and meat safety warrant increased
scrutiny of the most appropriate method of inspecting meat. During recent
decades, successful deregulation initiatives occurred in a number of areas
including banking and transportation. This shows that market forces may provide
an improvement over government regulation of economic activity, even when
regulations are long-standing and widely accepted.
Is Meat Inspection Different?
Skeptics, including even many market proponents, might say that the conventional
analysis doesn’t hold for government regulations protecting health—where
slip-ups can be fatal. Problems of “government failure,” however, may be
worse than any market imperfections that government regulation is instituted to
remedy.[2] Thus, government failure would have even graver implications for
health issues.
Is it possible that the free market could substitute for, and even improve on,
the current system of federal meat inspection? The following analysis
demonstrates that the problems in government meat inspection are similar to
those that plague all other government regulation of economic activity. There is
no way for government regulators to obtain the information and realize the
incentives of the decentralized market process, whatever the area of economic
activity. Thus, market inspection of the U.S. meat industry, when contrasted
with the current system of federal regulation, is likely to reduce the incidence
of illness associated with the consumption of unsafe meat.
Federal Meat Inspection—How It Began
The Meat Inspection Act of 1891 was a major landmark in federal regulation of
meat and, indeed, of federal regulation of economic activity in the United
States.[3] A review of the political economy of that era is helpful in
understanding the impetus for government regulation. Most government
intervention then and now, at least ostensibly, is in response to “market
failure”—economic outcomes that fall short of “perfect competition.”
(All markets fail, of course, when measured against this criterion.)
Moreover, the 1891 act was instituted under false pretenses. It was a solution
to a largely nonexistent problem—contaminated meat. There is no reliable
evidence that tainted meat was a major factor in the adoption of the
legislation. In a political-economic analysis of the era, Gary Libecap concludes
that “the record does not indicate that the incidence of diseased cattle or
their consumption was very great, and there is no evidence of a major health
issue at that time over beef consumption.”[4] Government meat inspection, once
in place, however, like many other government regulations, was soon viewed as
necessary to protect consumers.
There is a great deal of evidence that the political impetus for the 1891
legislation was the consequence of rapidly changing economic conditions. Market
dominance by Chicago meat-packers—primarily Swift, Armour, Morris, and
Hammond—quickly followed the introduction of refrigeration around 1880.
Refrigeration allowed for centralized, large-scale, and lower-cost
slaughterhouses because of production, distribution, and transportation
advantages. The four large Chicago firms accounted for about 90 percent of the
cattle slaughtered in Chicago within a decade after the introduction of
refrigeration.
The Chicago packers fundamentally changed demand and supply conditions in the
meatpacking industry. Small, local slaughterhouses throughout the country were
rapidly displaced because they could not compete with the lower-cost Chicago
packers. Local slaughter firms, in response, charged that Chicago packers used
diseased cattle and that their dressed beef was unsafe. The disease issue, as
bogus as it apparently was, threatened both domestic demand and export markets
for U.S. meat. Cattle raisers, especially those in the midwest, backed federal
meat inspection to promote demand.[5]
Cattle producers were also concerned about falling prices. Prices fell because
the supply of cattle grew rapidly. But producers attributed the fall to their
declining market power versus the Chicago packers—a charge that seemed
credible because of the packers’ size and concentration. Ostensibly to deal
with the largely spurious allegations of unsafe meat and collusion by the
Chicago packers, cattlemen, and local packers called for federal meat inspection
and antitrust legislation. Enactment of the Sherman Act in 1890 and the Meat
Inspection Act of 1891 were thus closely tied legislatively.[6]
The Jungle and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906
The famous Meat Inspection Act of 1906 also was heavily influenced by false
charges. Ideas have consequences, and public policy can be influenced by a
popular book, such as Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle—regardless of its merits.
The muckraking novel focused on greed and abuse among Chicago meat-packers and
government inspectors.[7] The characters in The Jungle tell of workers falling
into tanks, being ground up with animal parts, and being made into “Durham’s
Pure Leaf Lard.”
Sinclair wrote The Jungle to ignite a socialist movement on behalf of
America’s workers. He did not even pretend to have actually witnessed or
verified the horrendous conditions he ascribed to Chicago packing houses.
Instead, he relied heavily on both his own imagination and hearsay. Indeed, a
congressional investigation at the time found little substance in Sinclair’s
allegations.[8]
Nevertheless, the sensational allegations dramatically reduced the demand for
meat. U.S. exports fell by half. Major meat-packers saw new regulations as the
way to restore confidence, and they strongly endorsed the Meat Inspection Act of
1906, which expanded the scope of federal inspection to include smaller
competitors.
Economic conditions back then were much different from today’s. However, there
is a lesson to be learned from that early period concerning government and
free-market approaches to meat inspection.
The early legislation, for the most part, was not a response by government to a
legitimate public-health threat. Congress enacted the 1891 act in response to
political pressure by local meat-packers and cattle growers who felt victimized
by the rise in power of the Chicago packers and by lower cattle prices. This
legislation along with the Sherman Act and the Interstate Commerce Act, all
enacted within a four-year period, represented a significant break with what had
previously been considered an appropriate role for the federal government.[9]
The 1906 Meat Inspection Act, too, was largely a response to the meat
industry’s financial problems rather than to a health threat. The earlier
spate of interventionist legislation, however, had provided a new mandate for
government regulation of economic activity that facilitated the passage of the
1906 act. Thus, the case of federal meat inspection is yet another example of
Ludwig von Mises’s insight that government intervention almost inevitably
leads to further intervention.
Pitfalls of Government Regulation
Thus government meat inspection, like most other economic regulation, was
instituted mainly because of favor-seeking: the use of time and money to harness
the power of government for private ends.[10] Favor-seeking is a negative-sum
activity. The nation’s output of goods and services decreases as resources are
used to restrict competition rather than to expand production and exchange.
Favor-seeking is just one example of “government failure.”
Government intervention often is counterproductive because of information and
incentive problems. The crucial economic problem confronting society is how to
use people’s specialized knowledge to best satisfy consumers. As Nobel
laureate F.A. Hayek emphasized, government officials cannot obtain the
information that motivates individual choice because that information, much of
which is never articulated, is strongly linked to a particular time and place.
Consequently, officials must base decisions on something other than the
“public interest,” if that term means the interests of the people who
comprise the public.
Moreover, even if the information could be known, it is unlikely to be used most
effectively. Government officials lack appropriate incentives because power and
responsibility are separated. Those who make and administer laws do not bear the
consequences of their actions, at least not to the same extent as private
individuals. As shown below, markets generally are superior to government
regulation because they cope better with information and incentive problems.
Dealing with Change
Related to the incentive problem is another flaw in the current system of meat
inspection: the adverse effect of government regulation on innovation. That flaw
is found in all alternatives to the decentralized market process.[11]
In the absence of the profit motive, individuals have less incentive to discover
and implement new technology in the inspection and handling of meat. No one
knows, of course, which new technology will ultimately prove beneficial in meat
inspection or in any other area. However, in the marketplace, if an innovation
proves to be profitable the person responsible for it will receive a large part
of the reward. Things are quite different in a centralized system. Under
government regulation, the government employee who discovers or adopts a
potentially superior technology is likely to receive only a small amount of
additional compensation. On the other hand, if the innovation doesn’t pan out,
he will lose much less than the entrepreneur in a profit-and-loss system.
This fundamental difference between markets and government is highly important
to innovation in the meat industry. The heart of U.S. meat inspection continues
to be the “poke and sniff” method that relies on the eyes and noses of some
7,400 Department of Agriculture inspectors. In 1997 a small Massachusetts
company, SatCon Technology Corporation, working with a North Dakota-based group
of ranchers, found a way to use lasers to find illness-causing pathogens such as
E. coli and salmonella by scanning animal carcasses in slaughterhouses.[12] Such
technological innovation has the potential to revolutionize meat inspection in
the United States.
But it is more likely to be adopted in a free market than in a
government-regulated market. Since it has the potential to dramatically reduce
both the amount of labor currently used in meat inspection and the rationale for
government regulation, it is inconsistent with two important goals of any
bureaucracy: maintaining jobs and expanding its operation.
Market Competition Versus Government Regulation
The experience of government control of economic activity shows why government
meat inspection is likely to be inferior to free markets. Private inspection
firms, which must meet the market test, have a greater incentive to be effective
than do government regulators. A private firm providing information to consumers
about meat quality will reap profits when successful and incur losses when not.
Thus, if a private meat-grading service were to become lax in satisfying
consumers, meat firms no longer would be willing to pay for the service.
Consequently, the private firm not only has an advantage in obtaining the
necessary information; it also has a greater incentive to use it in the interest
of the public weal.
Moreover, profit-seeking firms are likely to have a greater incentive than
government regulators to adhere to quality standards. Government inspectors get
to know the people operating the plants they regulate. Strict enforcement of
standards might create hardship for those people. For example, if meat is
considered to be of marginal quality but not to pose a significant health
threat, regulators may be inclined to overlook such infractions. In short, when
contrasted with market regulation, government regulators have a smaller
incentive to enforce safety regulations.
Who Will Protect the Consumer?
Numerous studies have shown the benefits from privatization. It is quite likely
that problems of food safety would be dealt with better through the
decentralized market process, which provides a greater opportunity for both
business firms and consumers to achieve their goals. Stated differently, the
market process provides a greater incentive than government regulation for
private firms and consumers to discover, disseminate, and use information about
the quality of meat.
For one thing, government regulation gives consumers a false sense of
security.[13] It leads them to assume that they are being protected by the
government, reducing the incentive to do their own checking. Market methods of
inspection, in contrast, give consumers a greater incentive to acquire
information about the quality of meat. Consequently, they are likely to be more
alert to potential problems of food safety.
It is true, of course, that meat may be contaminated when it appears to be safe.
If sellers of meat have more information about quality than consumers do, can
consumers look after their interests? Yes; uneven information does not imply
that sellers have an incentive to sell unsafe meat. Consumers are protected by
the sellers’ economic interests.
The use of brand names, such as Armour or Swift, is one way that private firms
assure quality standards for meat.[14] A brand name enables consumers to
identify a firm’s meat product and choose it over competitors. Hence, a firm
with an established and valuable brand name has a strong financial incentive to
adhere to quality standards.
A company responsible for selling contaminated meat can be quickly ruined by
adverse publicity about its products. The recall of Hudson beef in 1997 left
Burger King branches across the midwest without hamburgers. Following the
recall, Burger King canceled their contract with Hudson Foods and announced that
it would never buy from the company again—showing that it is strongly in the
financial interest of business firms not to sell tainted meat.
Where quality is difficult for consumers to evaluate, little-known firms may
benefit from the services of private inspectors to certify safety. There is
considerable evidence that market forces can assure product quality without
government regulation. Best Western, for example, is a private certification
agency that enables travelers to identify motels that meet specified quality
standards. Underwriters Laboratories establishes standards for electrical
products, and tests them to see if they meet those standards. These examples
show that firms frequently are willing to pay to assure customers that their
products meet prescribed standards. The success of Consumer Reports and similar
publications is further evidence that consumers are willing to pay to be
informed.
Is meat inspection an exception to the rule that private firms generally perform
more effectively than government? There are good reasons to think that
market-based inspection of the meat industry could improve on the current
system. Illness associated with contaminated meat often occurs with federal meat
inspection. There is no way, of course, to prevent all food-related illness.
Mistakes on the part of buyers and sellers, and some degree of fraud, are
unavoidable whatever the institutional arrangement. The goal in meat inspection,
as in other areas of economic activity, is to establish an institutional
arrangement that provides and uses information in a way that best serves
consumers. The free market generally is more effective than government
regulation in doing so.
Why Not More Market Inspection of Meat?
We’ve seen that businesses and consumers are willing to pay to assure product
quality. And, as emphasized throughout, it is apparent that private inspection
agencies “have a lot going for them.”[15] Yet, despite the ostensible
advantages of the market approach, there is little reliance on market forces in
meat inspection in the United States. Why does the meat industry not rely on
market regulation more?
Market-generated information about the quality of meat undoubtedly would be much
greater in the absence of government regulation. Government inspection tends to
preempt market inspection, much as taxpayer-financed education crowds out
privately funded schools, by reducing the incentives of sellers and buyers to
look after safety on their own.[16] There is little demand on the part of meat
handlers for services that would be provided by private firms in the absence of
government inspection. Business firms are, of course, also happy to have the
taxpayers pick up the tab for inspection.
Similarly, with assurances by the USDA (and the media) that government
regulation is crucial to consumer safety, there is little impetus for consumers
to change the current institutional arrangement. Moreover, when problems of meat
safety occur, there is no discussion of “government failure.” Instead,
regulatory officials plead for more power. In the aftermath of the Hudson Foods
incident, for example, Secretary Glickman requested additional authority to shut
down food-processing plants and to impose fines of $100,000 per day on any plant
not obeying his order.
There can be no guarantees when it comes to food safety. Indeed, zero risk is
not a reasonable objective in any aspect of human action. There are two
approaches to ensuring the safety of meat—market inspection and government
regulation. It is ironic that the public expects government regulation, which
has more imperfections than the competitive market process, to provide for meat
safety.[17] Few people question the appropriateness of government regulation of
the meat industry, even when they fault its effectiveness.
No one has a stronger interest in protecting consumers from tainted meat than
the businesses in the industry. Ultimately, safety is best assured when rooted
in the self-interest of business firms and consumers.
E. C. Pasour, Jr., is an economist at North Carolina State University.
Withdrawal
of direct final rule
02.feb.07
[Federal Register: (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Page 4963]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-12]
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0175; FRL-8111-3]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: Because EPA has received adverse comments, the Agency is
withdrawing the direct final rule excepting from the definitions of
``pesticide chemical'' and ``pesticide chemical residue'' under section
201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food
packaging (e.g., paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and
polymers) that is treated with a pesticide. The rule was published on
December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70667) (FRL-8084-2). We stated in that direct
final rule that if EPA received adverse comment by January 5, 2007, the
Agency would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We
subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule and are
therefore withdrawing the rule. EPA may issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking in a future edition of the Federal Register to initiate
action to repromulgate the rule provisions that are being withdrawn
today. In any such action, EPA would address the adverse comments it
received on the direct final rule.
DATES: The direct final rule published at 71 FR 70667, December 6, 2006, is
withdrawn, effective January 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari L. Duggard, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0028; fax
number: (703) 308-7026; e-mail address:duggard.mari@epa.gov.
FSnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
Kansas State University, and is supported at the Gold Fork level by: Marler
Clark, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada
(Microbial Food Safety Risk Assessment Unit), the Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food and AGCare
FSnet is supported at the Sterling Fork level by: Dairy Farmers of Canada,
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Food Safety Division, Chicken
Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association
Fsnet is supported at the Silver-plate Fork level by: National Pork Board, Food
Safety & Security at Kansas State University, Canadian Animal Health
Institute, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, JIFSAN, Pfizer Animal Health,
Keystone Foods LLC, National Restaurant Association, USDA/Food Information
Center, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Department of Primary Industries
Victoria (Australia), American Air Liquide, Traincan, Inc. and the Council for
Biotechnology Information
FSnet is supported at the Stainless Fork level by: Kerry (Canada) Inc., Ag-West
Bio Inc, Dunkin' Brands, Inc., Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence,
Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
Ontario Branch Inc., Ontario Food Protection Association, Food Products
Association, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Certified Laboratories,
Inc., Centrus International, Inc., Sensient Flavors, Inc., National Turkey
Federation, Culex Management, Inc., International Association for Food
Protection, Canadian Livestock Genetics Association, Casco, Inc., BlueWater
Seafoods, International Commission on Microbiological Specifications of Foods,
International Food Focus, Ltd., Chemical Metrology Group of the National
Research Council, Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd., New Science Management, Inc.,
City of Vernon, CA, Global Public Affairs, Farmington Valley Health District,
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and the Food Safety
Policy Center at Michigan State University.
The Food Safety Network's Canadian toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all
those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food
supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/donation.html. For information on collaboration
or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell:
dpowell@ksu.edu
To subscribe to the html version of FSnet, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe fsnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe fsnet-L Doug Powell
(replace fsnet-L with fsnettext to subscribe to the text version)
To unsubscribe to the html version of FSnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type: signoff fsnet-L
(replace fsnet-L with fsnettext to unsubscribe from the text version)
For more information about the FSnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
associate professor
dept. diagnostic medicine/pathobiology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
66506
cell: 785-317-0560
fax: 785-532-4039
dpowell@ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
archived at http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm