The late David Landes put it well in his book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: simply put, “government rests on paper.”
Some might argue that FSMA was birthed by a rogue group of special interests or lobbying. Not true. Neither was it a spontaneously generated law invented by bored politicians. From its genesis, FSMA was a true group effort if there ever was one (involving both Republicans and Democrats); many thought leaders came together to help the U.S. government better respond to the latest category of food-related public health crises.
As food scientists studying the safety, security, and ongoing operation of the food system, we have seen the sources of foodborne illness outbreaks shift from primarily animal protein-based products to other troublesome food vehicles like spinach, frozen foods, cantaloupe, peanut butter, and others. Other new threats include the intentional adulteration of food abroad, and the ever-present specter of terroristic attacks on the food supply. These developments got the attention of politicians (who, in our republic, are to represent the people and make decisions in their interests) who rightly perceived a need to update—“modernize,” as the law’s title hints—food safety regulation in the U.S.
FSMA was the outcome of their efforts.
In light of that, let’s not allow FSMA to fall into “dead-letter” repute through an irresponsible dismantling of the FDA.
Enforcing laws involves a balance between doing nothing on the one hand, and taking unduly wide-ranging all-inclusive action on the other; somewhere in the middle the right balance can be struck. If Trump and Wallace were to discuss the pros and cons of funding and continuing the FDA’s implementation of FSMA, Wallace would (hopefully) convince Trump that moving FSMA forward is wise for public health, economic, and even political reasons. Here’s why.
First, undoing a law is costly. Hours of research and political jockeying were required to write FSMA, and even more time and energy has gone into the rulemaking and enforcement processes. Turning our backs on FSMA now would be a tremendous waste of already spent American taxpayer dollars.
Second, history has demonstrated that an unregulated, open market won’t automatically deliver on safe food practices. While many good actors participate in the food industry, America’s food safety laws and regulations were birthed in response to bad actors (see Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and the resultant Federal Meat Inspection Act), unintentional acts of contamination (as we have seen in fresh produce in recent years), as well as outright malevolent threats (hence the 2002 Bioterrorism Act).
Third, the American food safety system was and still is far from perfect, and shortcomings can have significant public health and economic ramifications. Chipotle, for example, is still reeling after numerous food safety lapses in 2015 and 2016 (norovirus, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli outbreaks) that betrayed consumer trust and saw shares fall 45 percent. The CDC estimates 1 in 6 Americans will fall ill this year from contaminated food. Of that number, 3,000 will die and many more will be left with life-altering, debilitating aftereffects. It is the duty of food safety public servants to continue enforcing laws to prevent illnesses from happening and to keep up with scientific breakthroughs to keep Americans safe.
Fourth, it takes years for a society to trust its food supply, and that trust can be quickly lost. One might say that is precisely why nations have regulatory institutions—to safeguard the public’s trust. America’s food safety regulations have survived Republican and Democratic-dominated Congresses (and liberal as well as conservative Presidents) because they are enforced by politically insulated agencies. For every supposedly incompetent bureaucrat, there are scores of competent, politically neutral public servants working for the FDA. Oh, and by the way, microbes don’t care if you vote Democrat or Republican.
Leave a Reply