One last potential cause of diarrhea worth mentioning is monosodium glutamate, widely used in processed, packaged foods and restaurant fare.[40] MSG excites taste and other receptors, so lesser quality foods can appear to the palate to be tastier than they are. The reactive component of MSG is glutamic acid, which the FDA has allowed to be hidden in thousands of processed food products under a long list of names, including hydrolized vegetable protein. Hydrolized vegetable protein got a lot of press recently as the subject of a massive recall, because it may have been contaminated with salmonella. Glutamic acid is an excitotoxin, that can kill brain cells,[41] but the FDA is concerned only about its presence if it may be a vector of foodborne illness. This paradox cuts to the heart of the problem with the FDA and its role of protector of corporate interests over public welfare. If the FDA were truly concerned with food safety, ingredients containing glutamic acid would be banned. How can anyone paying attention not notice that the FDA will go to the end of the world to save us from a possible case of the runs, but approves of our slow poisoning, if the product in question is big money-maker (like GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, increasingly high doses of soy protein) for vested interests.
Let's return to the problems with the Mead Study. Compelling information that the Mead Study/CDC numbers are inflated comes from a rather ironic source: a survey conducted last October for Make Our Food Safe by Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, which was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The survey interviewed voters rejecting anyone who was not self-identified as a definite voter -- in five states: Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming.[42] These states are notable for being the home states of Senators Judd Gregg (R), Kay Hagan (D), Richard Burr (R), Sherrod Brown (D) and Michael Enzi (R), all members of the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which was about to vote S 510 out of committee, as well as Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate. The survey findings, complete with newspaper-friendly ready-to-use graphics, were supplied to the press in the Senators' home states to drive home the idea that we need the government to do something to "make our food safe."
Though not highlighted in any of these graphics or publicized by Make Our Food Safe, the state surveys revealed some unexpected results. Participants were asked: "In the past year, have you had a bout of food poisoning or gotten sick from eating what you believed to be contaminated food?" And that question was followed up by this one: "In the past year has anyone in your immediate family other than yourself had a bout of food poisoning or gotten sick from what you believed to be contaminated food?" The answers to these questions should surprise anyone who has been lead to believe that 1 in 4 people get sick each year from something they ate:
So, this yields an annual incident rate of foodborne illness of less than 10% versus the over 25% estimated by the Mead Study. One in ten is certainly a lot smaller ratio than one in four. And that translates to approximately 30 million people a year nationwide getting sick from something they ate, not 76 million cases. Perhaps MOFS thought it would not be helpful to publicize these rather significant findings in its media blitz, since it's hard to argue that the FDA needs expanded police-like powers to oversee how farmers grow and harvest their crops if the country's food safety system isn't really broken.
Perception Versus Reality
If we lived in a world where our perceptions weren't so well managed, we might also see articles in the press about a very important paper Robert Scharff co-authored just a few weeks before the Pew-funded Produce Safety Project report made headlines across the country. In fact, this paper should be required reading for Senators considering their vote for the game-changing legislation. Published in February 2010 and entitled "Food Safety in the 21st Century," the paper looks at the question of whether our food is really getting less safe. It asserts that "Recent increases in reported outbreaks of food-related illnesses have spurred Congress to respond to the public's growing concern over food safety with new legislation purported to strengthen the food safety system. Congress's action reflect the common perception that food is becoming less safe, but in reality the recent increases in reported outbreaks stem from increased improvements in surveillance of the food supply system and increased press coverage of food-related illnesses."[48]
Scharff and his co-authors, Richard Williams and David Bieler, state that "Even though it is not the crisis the media makes it out to be, food safety remains a significant problem. A key question for the policy makers is whether legislation that leads to more regulations and inspections will result in significant improvements in food safety. We believe it will not."[49]
As an example of ineffective regulations, the authors cite the FDA's imposition of HACCP safety controls and inspections on raw seafood in the 1990s, explaining that "This case also demonstrates the weakness of a politically motivated regulatory system, as evidenced by the motive of large seafood manufacturers who sought the rule, in part, to impose costs on their smaller rivals. Overall it had a negligible impact on public health." [50]
Scharff, Williams and Bieler also take issue with the world view that the only way to solve problems is to have more regulations and more auditing: "Instead of focusing on regulation and inspection, food safety agencies should invest more resources in discovering solutions to systemic food safety problems"When effective solutions are found, instead of enshrining them in regulations, the government can publish them on the Web. Firms can then determine for themselves whether the solutions will work for their particular product or process and will incorporate these practices into the millions of existing detailed contracts between buyers, suppliers, and insurance companies." [51]
The authors suggest that the expansion of FoodNet and PulseNet are the kinds of investments that "are likely to be much more cost effective than more government inspections of plants since the overwhelming majority of plants do not produce outbreaks."[52]
Their conclusion calls into question the entire premise of the legislation before the Senate. Scharff, Williams and Bieler argue that "By investing in information rather than regulation, the government will increase accountability, foster solutions, and improve the safety of the food supply."[53] Shouldn't we examine alternative approaches to food safety other than the one pushed by those with long-standing ties to industry? Shouldn't Congress be called upon to debate alternatives before it votes in business-busting and job-killing measures? Investigating root causes is the only real way of finding real solutions. Mandating game-changing regulations and auditing that have the power to significantly alter the marketplace have to date provided no evidence of progress, so perhaps we should consider another option before we put our farmers out of business unnecessarily.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
