« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The FDA in bed with Big Business

You probably remember the fanatical fear that gripped the nation these last few years in response to a few factories with tainted peanut butter. You may also remember the national panic when spinach was a killer stalking grocery stores across the country. These types of events are notorious for being blown out of proportion by the national media & being chaotic by virtue of bureaucratic over-involvement.

While this may be remembered by many consumers as an annoyance, it is remembered far differently by the corporations that are subjected to massive regulation at the hands of bureaucrats from the FDA as well as dozens of state and local regulators across the country.

For the companies that had to deal with these problems, it was more than an annoyance, but rather an incredibly costly nightmare that they can never allow to happen again. When the peanut butter crisis hit, factories across the country were completely shut down in an attempt to trace the problem to it’s source without contaminating any other consumers. On it’s face this may sound reasonable however it is a massive over reaction that costs untold millions of dollars to the industry and in most cases producing limited results as the contamination is usually traced back to just one factory and by that time the damage has been done. For a business owner or CEO this is absolutely unacceptable.

Enter S.510.

Billed by supporters as the “Food & Safety Modernization Act”, they claim it will help prevent the events I just described. In reality it’s simply a marriage of large corporations and the FDA in an attempt to save the corporations money and grant centralized power over our food supply to the FDA.

First, what does the FDA get out of it?

For national food companies, a key issue they have to deal with is diversity of regulations. One state requires this food label vs another state that has a different requirement. California is particularly infamous for their regulations which go far beyond the “quaint” regulations of the FDA. In cases where California’s regulations conflict with FDA regulations, Federal Preemption causes the FDA to win.  It should come as no surprise that the FDA prefers this outcome.

However, it is well known that the D is much more important than the F in the Food & Drug Administration. For years their focus has been primarily on drugs and as a result, the states have been self regulating to a large degree. This does not sit well with the powers that be at the FDA, but what could they do? It’s not as though people are clamoring to be regulated by the federal government. Or are they?

This takes us to what the large food manufacturers, grocery stores and corporate farms get out of it.

As mentioned above, companies have had to deal with regulations from various states for decades and when these recalls swept through the country over the last few years, “Big Food” had had enough. It was time to streamline the process. Make it so there is only one regulatory agency to deal with. And the FDA was more than happy to comply.

This doesn’t seem so devious yet does it? Well that’s only because I haven’t given you the punchline: The cost. $1.4 billion dollars over the next 4 years.

But not to worry! The companies that lobbied for the bill are more than happy to shoulder the burden of this cost! And by shoulder I mean pass down to the consumer in the form of higher prices on food. All rather than just doing what is necessary on their own dime to ensure a safer process for their customers. Just charge us for the bill, and pass the responsibility off to the government.

A mutually beneficial relationship where the regulated are more than happy to submit as long as the power is centralized at the federal level. This is the first bill that our Senate is pushing through after the massive conservative wins in November.

That it was written by Dick Durbin and sponsored by Chris Dodd should be enough to make anyone concerned. But not our friendly GOP. They’ve signed on in spades in what appears to be the most bi-partisan bill to come down the pike since 2006.

And why not? It’s only a massively expensive, deficit adding, power granting, bureaucratic kiss to large corporations who will raise their prices to pay for it further damaging an already weak economy. What’s not to love?

COMMENTS

  • Menlo
    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2010/11/30/how-did-lame-duck-dems-cross-another-liberty-road/

      • Menlo

        I knew the import regulations were a joke; that section mentioning the WTO and foreign trade agreements was key.

        Like China, our federal government always does what is best for China.

  • http://www.heavyhorsesfarm.com heavyhorses

    I’m glad this bill is getting some attention. It is a big deal – the biggest overhaul of food safety regs in something like 50 years. And we all eat and therefore all effected.

    I’m not sure how it will all shake out, but a couple points:

    Some of the big producers really do need federal oversight. The DeCoster Egg fiasco here in Iowa for example. The guy was fined repeatedly by the state but was so valuable to the state that the regulators were hesitant to really nail him. So they left his operation largely untouched with the potential to sicken, and even kill many, many people.

    Second, the bill forces importers of food from China, Mexico, etc to ensure their foreign facilities meet US standards. This is very important because a.) foreign production can be horrific – dead animals in irrigation canals, workers toilets along side irrigation canals, uncontrolled pesticide use, etc.

    and b.) since 99% of imported food is never inspected, its a terrorist opportunity waiting to be exploited.

    Big Ag supported this bill, even volunteered to pay for it until the Tester Amendment was added to it. The truth is, they even promoted this bill for one reason – they see an increasing threat from small producers like me. The Tester amendment protected small producers from the regulations and Big Ag turned against it. It was once a tool to drive small producers out of business, so they loved it.

    Once the Tester Amendment was added some Senators turned against it too. So you know where their allegiance lies.

  • boxedquad

    Cover it with all kinds of nice thoughts, but in the end we will pay more and have more “controls” added to all our supplier and the states will not have control of states rights…

    A power grab if you just take the time to read it.. Put it down and DO NOT PASS IN HOUSE, recommit next session or kill it. The Senate was too lopsided.

  • severed2009

    With little regulation, Federal or state, most food producers will take care, a few will cut corners or be sloppy, and a few people will sicken or die. It will generally be very difficult to trace what sort of food contamination led to the sickness, and the exact source of the contamination. Records would be kept in different ways and would be private property and even trade secrets, so a trace would be very expensive if not impossible.

    Once in a while a large enough sample of people would be sickened or killed that the incidents came to public knowledge. Even then it would be difficult to trace the exact source, so people might well abandon eating a whole category of food (salad, for example), penalizing those growers who took proper care as well as the guilty parties. Rumors of food dangers could be used to get a competitive advantage, and there would be a new market for home food testing kits. Clever advertising campaigns could build deserved or undeserved credibility, which could be sold to food makers (sort of what the BBB does).

    A possible world, certainly, and perhaps better than the current corruption. Sort of like what exists now in China.

  • kaye

    and lots of folks are calling and e-mailing. More federal regulations and bureaucrats feeding at the public trough is anathema, and the Senate Republicans had better get a clue. There are unconstitutional aspects to this bill, as to all the other bills being rammed through.

  • avgjo

    We have enough stuff to undo without worrying about this.

    Food shortages cause all the movie-type apocalyptic scenarios. And we all know what happens to production when the government regulates it. Just ask the manufacturers who used to be in this country.

    Fight.

  • hertfordkc

    the consumers of peanut butter, cereal… would have lower cost foodstuffs if the big producers had to contend with 50 different sets of regulations instead of one set?
    I certainly can see how a small producer in one state would like to keep up the barrier to entry by having regulations specific to his state, but that doesn’t result in a cheaper product to the consumer. In fact, it could have the effect of creating a quasi-monopoly.
    Be as cynical of state regulation as you are of federal regulation.

  • http://www.benhoweblog.wordpress.com Ben Howe

    That’s why they want this bill. The cost of production is going up whether it’s 50 regulators or 1 as a result of national panic with recalls and tainted food. The question for consumers is, do we want a federal centralized bureaucracy to handle that, or to continue to allow state regulation.

    At the state level we could fight alongside the companies to help deregulate and bring down the costs of doing business in our individual states while also working with them to come up with safer, cheaper and more efficient ways of preventing contamination. Once it hits the federal level, the game is over and the price of food goes up with little hope of reversing the regulatory expansion and every reason to believe that the process of preventing contamination will be muddied by the bureaucracy.

    Expanding federal power for the sake of a company’s bottom line is just not a good idea.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    No and not likely. Federal involvement never makes it cheaper or better.

    Creating unconstitutional monolithic agencies that become political playthings for lobbyists and socialist do gooders alike are always a bad idea.

    As long as there is an FDA our food supply will never be safe from political pandering.

  • pilgrim

    As you watch the costs of your food rise because of this remember how your Senator voted. I live in Texas and both of my Senators voted No.

  • hertfordkc

    but the consumers’ bottom line.
    What does the FDA do for consumer?
    What does state regulation do for the consumer?

  • mosander

    Aside for that, it gives the big corporations control of food prices, GMO (genetically modified foods) and seeds. When a government regulator catches an error in food manufacturer, it is quite possible to bribe that official to either not report the error or claim it is fixed. Those with money are not afraid of government regulation because of widespread corruption at all levels including the courts. Far from being safer, our health is for sale. And in case you missed it, the globalist elite refer to us as “useless eaters” and therefore are to be disposed of quietly into soylent green.

  • http://www.benhoweblog.wordpress.com Ben Howe

    That it is somehow easier to amend or contain federal regulation then it is to reverse or contain state regulation?

    If thats the case where you live, I’d move.

  • pilgrim

    Maybe the other 26 in this class are just hoping the money they get from Hormel and Beatrice will get them reelected in spite of the higher prices their constituents will be paying to buy food.

    Senators voting No up in 2012

    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Wicker (R-MS)

  • texasgalt

    among the notable Republicans voting with the Dems. Just relectected Vitter also voted Aye.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00257#position

    Ever more power for the Feds.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    don’t you know you’re not supposed to be paying attention to that stuff? We have wikileaks to occupy our time. ;-)

  • pilgrim

    Which one is up for reelection in 2012?

  • pilgrim

    On final passage of Food Safety Bill R Senators voting Yes (*=up in 2012)

    Alexander (R-TN)
    Brown (R-MA)*
    Burr (R-NC)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Kirk (R-IL)
    Lugar (R-IN)*
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Snowe (R-ME)*
    Vitter (R-LA)

    lame ducks voting Yes

    Bayh (D-IN)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    LeMieux (R-FL)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Specter (D-PA)
    Voinovich (R-OH)

  • The_Gadfly

    One of the places where I use to work (ages ago now) was peripherally involved in keeping your food safe. Our task in the process was pretty simple: produce and publish the tests which would be used to determine whether or not item X meets the requirements. Turns out to be far more complicated than that simple statement sounds and that’s when nobody has a secondary agenda.

    Food safety isn’t just a tangled mess because of the state regs, its also mucked up because it crosses more agencies than you’d think it does. While we had a working relationship with the FDA, the more important one was with Agriculture. If it was raw produce, or thing being sent from the far to the processing plant, it falls under Ag. FDA only gets involved after it is manufactured, except for those things that underwent “manufacturing” processes before there was an FDA like flour and sugar. There is actually a reg that specifies how many pieces of cockroach (and how big those pieces can be) in a given volume of feed or flour. Because contrary to Beltway belief, you can’t actually completely eliminate them from the stuff that ships.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Can’t stand Alexander and ain’t crazy about Corker, either. They both leave a lot to be desired in conservative bonafides.

  • Jim Tomasik

  • Adjoran

    “All rather than just doing what is necessary on their own dime to ensure a safer process for their customers. ”

    Sorry, but the costs will be passed along no matter at which stage they are incurred. Why the assumption the costs will be higher to meet a single national standard than to meet (potentially) 50 different state specifications?

    Is it your contention that, say, insurance is cheaper because it is regulated by the states instead of being available across state lines?

    It is far more important for regulations to be reviewed and trimmed periodically, and for Congress to exercise its oversight function over the regulators. The assumption that state regulators are more efficient is false.

  • The_Gadfly

    are major PITA to test for as far as produce is concerned. When I was working for the outfit, the best turn around time was 48 hours, which is a pretty significant part of a 7-day shelf life. So your best root for dealing with them is keeping the production facility clean, which tends to require well paid workers who are sure they can’t be deported if they tell the boss something is amiss.

    Oh, and since the plant that was the cause of the ruckus with the peanut butter had several prior warning about cleaning up the place, I got no problem with throwing the existing book at them. Failure to enforce on the problem children is a bigger source of trouble than insufficient or conflicting regs in the current set of laws.

  • america1st

    I am so glad to see him gone. No surprise on many of the others. Can’t wait to work for snowe’s primary challengers.

    We need more of this excessive intrusion into our daily lives as much as a daily porcupine enema. It makes the system more cumbersome & unresponsive, it makes the products more expensive and at the end of the day, the public is in far worse shape than it was without its tax monies wasted on even more drones with obscenely high salaries doing nothing of value.

  • The_Gadfly

    either the California or Pennsylvania regs. If they meet those they usually pass for everybody else.

    But with the FDA having final say, the Food producers think they will incur less costs because they’ll only need to meet federal regs. As I posted above, I think it’s a Faustian bargain, but fools seem to abound in these charades.

  • http://www.benhoweblog.wordpress.com Ben Howe

    there’s also the 1.4 billion dollars over the next 4 years which is so “low” because the companies are “absorbing” other costs like creating a “safety plan”

    In truth, these additional savings that make the tally only 1.4 Billion are going to be passed down to us and then the tax payer still has to foot the bill for the additional budgetary spending.

    But at least it costs the manufacturers less overall right? (which as others pointed out, it almost certainly will not as you usually need to multiply govt spending projections by a factor of 10)

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Did you look it up? I didn’t. was thinking Alexander was re-elected and Corker beat Ford for the number 2 Senator slot, in the same year.

    Either way, I’m not crazy about both of them.

  • Jim Tomasik

    Lamar! was 2008, none in 2010, Corker goes again in 2012.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    So can we replace Corker in 2012 with somebody who won’t “compromise” with the progressives on anything? Compromise with them means burying one’s head in the sand while they sneak in clauses that nullify the compromise.

    And then replace Alexander later for good measure?

  • doubledok

    Hence, this statement misdirects energies of the vocal –
    “The companies that lobbied for the bill are more than happy to shoulder the burden of this cost! And by shoulder I mean pass down to the consumer in the form of higher prices on food.”-

    Regardless of the process or the cost, the consumer ultimately foots the entire bill. Tainted food still represents a major potential pathway for terror applicants. Water supply probably carries even more viulnerability. When an industry suffers a catastrophe, whether environmental like an oil spill, potentially fatal consumption like food contamination, or litigation based like losing a huge lawsuit – the corporate stocks suffer mildly for a quarter or two before profits return.

    Big business utilizes these as free advertising because their name is out there and they can tout their responsibility in changing things to reduce future threats. If that fails, they just re-name themselves and contend they jettisoned the bad apples (pun intended).

    Governement employs similar P.R. tactics along the lines of “never waste a catastrophe”. The net result is increased expense as regulation and larger bureacracy increasing taxes. Sometimes it generates less efficiency as duplicate oversight in a different government regulator (FDA and DEA and SEC and EPA and Interior, etc.) The ultimate government innefficency absent sensible rationale still remans FEMA and Homeland Security/TSA. (If you remove the congress and their lobbyist masters)

    As Ronald Reagan voiced -”Government IS the problem.” -doubledok