FDA: New rules will make food safer

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. …

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.

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.