New World of Food Safety versus Wacko's World Hunger

Expect a "new order" for food safety in the coming months. Over the past several weeks numerous accounts of changes, proposed changes and desired changes have been reviewed by the Committees of jurisdiction as well as the two agencies primarily responsible for our nations food supply--The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In fact the US is considered to be the safest and most wholesome food supply in the world. However, in this discussion the US is not unique. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), foodborne diseases kill 2.2 million people annually. 1.9 million of whom are children. While government officials worldwide consider that the ill to heal in the food business is related to the fact that the more than 250 diseases they are currently aware and following are in a system that provides inadequate tracking the truth is that most of the concern is closer to home than that. Lack of cleanliness, bad storage and improper cooking techniques are responsible for the overwhelming majority of cases of food illness. In no way should that absolve the companies from their responsibilities nor should it belittle the fact that production systems today are bigger, faster, and more automated than ever before. Food must be produced as safe as possible, period. The famous Voltaire quote "The perfect is the enemy of the good" comes to mind when we look at the crop of regulations that may come in the future related to food safety. Before you question my appreciation for those 2.2 million people that died from food safety concerns let me explain the reference for the statement that we may be allowing "perfection" to get in the way of the "good" when it comes to food safety. I first remind you that most of the new regulations on food producing entities is taking place in countries that have the best track record and frankly the lowest tolerances for safety infractions. The United States produces a significant portion of the world finished food items and is the largest, by a significant amount, provider of food ingredients that are shipped around the world as aid to developing nations or those affected by tragedy. So most of these changes simply make food more expensive not fix the issues that kill millions worldwide. A simple rule of supply and demand must be considered, within the larger debate, as to what happens as you increase the regulation and therefore drive up costs on those producing food? Clearly, smaller portions of the food involved in aid programs will be available for the same amount of money. Same budget, less food, more hunger, then is food safety the biggest problem when it affects a small percentage of a given population or is hunger for that entire population the number one concern. Removing the US as an exporter through regulation or costs only creates problems both here and abroad.

As "blame game" specialist in America we first look for easy answers to complex problems, in this case developing new and improved methods to "fix" any possible slip in the system with irradiation. Does it work? Absolutely. Does it change the nature, flavor or taste and texture of the product? Not much in most cases. Most importantly is it safe? Unequivacally yes.

But wait, its not that simple. The Center for Food Safety has launched a campaign acusing the FDA of establishing rules to "mislead consumers" because they believe that you must label products that are cold pasturized, electronically pasteurized, or irradated with a big x-ray symbol on the front of the package in a way that will scare you out of the store screaming with your hands above your head as if you were caught in the Nevada desert during a '50's nuclear test.

They list as one of their concerns that irradiation has no effect on diseases like foot and mouth (FMD) disease (of which we haven't had a SINGLE case of in the US for almost a century and FMD is irrelevant to human health) or BSE (mad cow disease--of which we had only one case of the infectious variety identified in this country and that happened to be from an imported cow and which presented absolutely no risk to consumers since BSE infectivity is not found in muscles cuts--the stuff we actually eat) so these irrelevant needs to restrict the foods we eat with silly labels that are little more than their attempt to keep an overfed, overweight, over pleasured society like America from implementing low costs food safety safeguards that might also help the rest of the world to have access to safe wholesome food supplies.

Sure all the "science" involved is tempered with the same spin that we have seen on every issue from global warming (or cooling depending on the moment) to the fact that if you consume enough of anything, literally just about anything, from water to pork livers you run a higher risk of cancer than the average person. In the past 30 years Americans have been besieged by scare tactics of left wing groups that use these fears to accomplish their often stated but little understood goal which is to eliminate factory farming systems and to slow the food system down thereby making food more expensive.

Would food be safer if the system was slowed down? There really isn't any evidence to that effect. Twenty years ago our packing plants and canning systems ran at a slower speed. We had more safety concerns then than now. Beef systems in the US are a great example of how an industry sped themselves up and implemented stringent hazard analysis critical control point systems (HACCP) that have dramatically reduced the incedence of food safety concerns and yet there is virtually no recognition of this by the leftist groups that really want the system to meet their standards, not your needs.

So would irradiation and safety systems of a similar nature help in safer food. Sure. The better answer would be that we address where 96% of food safety "slips" begin and that is on the kitchen counter. I don't suggest irradiating Mom but simply cooking food properly and cleaning utenzils would solve most all the problems. Nah, we can't do it that way that would be admiting that something is our fault, largely, not the fault of the government or big bad corporate America! More importantly you won't contribute to their ridiculous efforts if they slam you so it has to be the dark evil forces inside America--corporations and the government that works for them. (yes my tongue is in my cheek).

I know we can fix it all by growing local. Would locally grown products by local farmers even be capable of meeting the needs of America, let alone the nearly 100 people outside of America that each farmer in this country is feeding today? Clearly not and that is the achilles of their arguement. They want America to stop feeding the world and to focus on producing more expensive and not necessarily safer product for Americans and to give the rest of the world the Heisman (stiff arm) for wanting to eat as well as we do. Good diplomacy? Good heart? I think good grief and goodbye to half the stuff we eat unless you live in central California, south Texas or south Florida! On my drive in this morning I didn't even see a farmer let alone a farm. If you didn't see any citrus, tomatoes, green vegatables or organic chickens on your way to work then they aren't grown in your neighborhood!

On a closing note: Since millions of Americans will need to go back to the farm and produce this local produce--it will take millions of small operations that operate at just about the poverty line to replace the thousands of "factory" farms we have today--please look around the table tonight and decide which one of you is going to learn a lifetime of knowledge, quit their current job, and buy a farm to feed this country.......yeah that is what I thought.