Skip to comments.FDA: New rules will make food safer
Posted on 01/05/2013 8:19:06 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Food and Drug Administration says its new guidelines would make the food Americans eat safer and help prevent the kinds of foodborne disease outbreaks that sicken or kill thousands of consumers each year.
The rules, the most sweeping food safety guidelines in decades, would require farmers to take new precautions against contamination, to include making sure workers hands are washed, irrigation water is clean, and that animals stay out of fields. Food manufacturers will have to submit food safety plans to the government to show they are keeping their operations clean.
The long-overdue regulations could cost businesses close to half a billion dollars a year to implement, but are expected to reduce the estimated 3,000 deaths a year from foodborne illness. The new guidelines were announced Friday
The produce rule would mark the first time the FDA has had real authority to regulate food on farms. In an effort to stave off protests from farmers, the farm rules are tailored to apply only to certain fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest risk, like berries, melons, leafy greens and other foods that are usually eaten raw. A farm that produces green beans that will be canned and cooked, for example, would not be regulated.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Oh, great! More government regulations! It’s not as if there is a reason to do this - our food products, farms, etc. are the best in the world. But NO!! “Without the government, what would we poor worms of humans do?” The farmers will LOVE the NE city academic elitists telling them how to do their farming.
No, it will make food more expensive, more difficult to acquire and more difficult to grow yourself.
It’s all about control. Nothing else.
Color me skeptical.
The sooner the ruling-class elite can starve the peasants to death, the sooner they can live in the Walden paradise they deserve.
More regulations being shoved up our butts. What is this going to cost us.
First they tax us to death then they fugg over our food sources.
New rules will make farming more expensive, forcing family farms out of the competition and handing yet further advantages to corporate interests.
They won't starve all of us; they need a servile class to cater to their needs.
"Can you hear the People sing?, singing the songs of angry men.....
Solent Green is coming to a supermarket near you.
Food too expensive, death panels.... Makes sense to me.
You got that right. Read the bill and you will be amazed at the extent of the power grab of this one. The FDA is now armed and dangerous and can come on your property to inspect your garden and tell you if you can even have one. That and a plethora of other unconstitutional carpola.
It will probably destroy organic gardening and they will really wage war on raw milk.
I’m looking at a DIY aquaponics set up. You grow your own vegetables and fish. Vegetables clean the water, fish fertilize the vegetables. 100 percent organic. Pumps can run on solar power. You can add red worm grow beds for the fish which makes it self sustainable.
You can put one in your back yard, basement, spare room, or apartment patio. Anything inside will need grow lights. Unless you live in the south you will need a small greenhouse if you plan on an outside set up.
Feed yourself and starve the beast.
I would love to see the cost/benefit analysis on this one. How many billions of dollars are spent treating food-borne illness every year? What is the cost of caring for someone who has been permanently injured by food poisoning? What is the cost of the lives lost from contaminated food? Versus the cost of the legislation.
I was very happy to see that the legislation is being based in science, and that the food producers have a say in it. Trying to write regulations to govern an activity without introducing unnecessary burdens for those engaged in the activity is a real challenge. I know, I've been part of that process.
We would not need any of this if the Luddites had not stopped the irradiation of food.
The goal is not just food safety which provides a convenient foot in the door, the goal is to centralize the food system and put more layers of government between the consumer and the food source.
Big corporate industry farms will just pass this cost onto consumers and retailers. Small farmers who rely on farmer’s markets and other direct sales will bear most of the brunt of the increased costs themselves. Since they do not have the ability to distribute the increase amongst a large group of retailers or consumers. They have to be more careful of their price increases so they don’t lose customers.
Ugh. I’m not even going to go there. Destroy every last shred of the US economy & force *unregulated* foreign garbage down our throats at the same time.
The red states need to secede & get out from under this crap.
I guess every field containing the offending crops will have to be fenced to keep critters out. What about birds?
lol I still don’t see critters, but I did see the bit about birds flying over. :rolls eyes: Just wow.
Nice of them to acknowledge that the produce & processed foods manufactured South of the border are unregulated- Not. (Eww Why am I thinking about Cheech Marin in Born in East La?)
It ticks me off, especially, because certain plants are restricted from one US state to another, yet unregulated foreign plants are dominant in some grocery stores.
The FDA is instrumental in putting our & our pets’ health, at risk NOT the other way around.
One of not so comedic George Lopez' routines is illegals wiping their butts on the vegetables they pick for gringos.
Thats OK we can import more from other countries where they don’t have health regs. Less than 2% of the imports are checked for anything.
Who says just because scientists and food businessmen will be involved it will somehow be better? Interested parties use regulations to harm competitors. Science guys have their own grudges and schemes completely unrelated to actual science. See: NASA.
Cost is not passed onto consumers (supply and demand). It goes back to the origin of production. Why is this sophism so endlessly popular?
I disagree. The cost of meeting increased regulations will be passed onto the consumer. However for small farmers the ability to do this and still make the amount of sales needed for profitability is limited. So yes at some point the cost does go back to the source of production.
A large producer can distribute the increased costs over a wider number of products so that increase is not felt as keenly by consumers. Also there are more steps between the producer and the consumer and those costs may be more readily absorbed by others before the goods reach the consumer. For example a wholesaler who purchases directly from the producer may decide not to pass on increased wholesale prices.
A small producer who has a limited amount of goods that are sold in a smaller market has a point at which the cost of offering the goods for sale is more than the amount of money people are willing to pay for those goods. He can not simply increase his market price without taking this into consideration. So yes that portion of costs will go back to him.
Bottom line the big guys can more readily meet the costs of new regulations. Costs do get passed down to the consumer if those costs have not been absorbed by others as the goods make their way from the producer to consumer.
But I could be wrong maybe all increases in food prices are due to any thing but the desire for farmers and sellers to make more money. Maybe they all do just decide to eat the costs and reduce their income.
I don’t want my food safer. I want my government to get out of my business.
Some of My Blog Pages Are Disappearing
This thread has been pulled.
Pulled on 01/05/2013 4:09:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Not our problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.