Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Does The FDA Really Need More Power?"

That’s a rhetorical question, clearly:

[…] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) wants to grant the FDA even more unaccountable administrative authority. Specifically, he is pushing for passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act in the lame duck session that opened this week.

Representative John Dingell (D–MI), who sponsored the companion bill approved by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) House in July 2009, hailed the proposed act as “a monumental piece of bipartisan legislation that will grant FDA the authorities and resources needed to effectively oversee an increasingly global food marketplace.” And it is true: Our food marketplace is increasingly global. But that does not mean it is any less safe. In fact, the data show that just the opposite is true: Between 1996 and 2009 the rate of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination has fallen by a third. But science has never been FDA’s strong suit. According to a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, only 36 percent of FDA managers believe the agency is keeping pace with scientific advances.

So just how big an expansion of government does Dingell, Pelosi, and Reid want to inflict on the American people to combat a non-existent food safety crisis? Well, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would require 50,000 domestic and foreign inspections in 2015, compared to just 7,400 in 2009. That is a sevenfold increase in government inspections. And the government would be reaching into a lot of new places as well. The act requires that all food “facilities”—including those home-based businesses that make jam, bread, and cheese for local markets—would be required to undertake periodic hazard analyses and produce “risk-based preventive controls.”

And then there is the wasteful spending that accompanies every liberal expansion of government: grants to schools for allergy management ($107 million); food safety training, education, outreach, and technical assistance ($21 million); and food safety participation grants for states and tribes ($83 million). Heritage Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Diane Katz writes: “The Reid bill clearly contradicts the message sent by voters just two weeks ago: Americans do not want and cannot afford yet more unnecessary regulation and expansion of government. This proposal constitutes a costly and ineffective answer to a manufactured crisis.”

And yet, 14 Republicans voted to allow Harry Reid to bring the legislation up for debate — though passage is currently at an impasse (stalled by an amendment demanding a ban on earmarks brought by Republican Tom Coburn).

If, as now appears to be the case, small farms would be exempt, why precisely do we need the legislation any way?

The answer is, we don’t. If politicians want to campaign on their records of “doing something,” they’d be best advised these days to run on the fact that they did nothing more than any other member of Congress.

How refreshing would that be…?

More here.

27 Replies to “"Does The FDA Really Need More Power?"”

  1. LTC John says:

    “How refreshing would that be…?”

    Rather a lot, actually.

    #$%&ing Big Nanny wants to grasp a couple more levers of power before being scooted out the door for the next couple of years…. Is it 2012 yet?

    We are going to have to pry the Senate out of Harry’s claws, and get someone in the White House who does not have the expansion of state power into EVERY aspect of our lives as a primary goal.

  2. Squid says:

    Having worked for a time in food safety and inspections, I still have never heard a reasonable answer for why we have overlapping programs from FDA and USDA. Perhaps Dingy John might better spend his time looking into that?

  3. happyfeet says:

    does the FDA need more power? Looks like Team R says yes yes yes.

    Here is a list of Republicans who voted to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate.

    Alexander (R-TN) co-sponsor
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Enzi (R-WY) co-sponsor
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Gregg (R-NH) co-sponsor
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Richard Burr (R-NC)
    Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
    Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
    John Isakson (R-GA)
    LeMieux (R-FL)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Voinovich (R-OH)

    sad.

  4. Mikey NTH says:

    They could do something by starting to cut the bureaucracy back. It would be something, and it actually would be popular.

    A win-win, as they say.

  5. cranky-d says:

    I didn’t realize there had been a rash of incidents of bad food making people sick.

    Oh, wait, there haven’t been, and this is just another nanny-state power grab. How unsurprising, and yet how grating.

    And those exemptions, which sound so understanding for the small business owner, only serve as a bar to expansion at some point, thus again favoring big business. And yet we wingnuts are the ones that support big business and the progressives are for the little guy. Right.

  6. geoffb says:

    The act requires that all food “facilities”—including those home-based businesses that make jam, bread, and cheese for local markets—would be required to undertake periodic hazard analyses and produce “risk-based preventive controls.”

    We must close the “Church Bake Sale” and “Farmer’s Market” loophole before more people are poisoned!

  7. Benedick says:

    Representative John Dingell (D–MI), who sponsored the companion bill approved by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) House in July 2009, hailed the proposed act as “a monumental piece of bipartisan legislation that will grant FDA the authorities and resources needed to effectively oversee an increasingly global food marketplace.”

    Oversee the global food marketplace? Administrative imperialists!

  8. JD says:

    There has never been a more tone deaf group of people than Hairy Reed and his fellow Dems.

  9. Bob Reed says:

    Does The FDA Really Need More Power?

    No.

  10. DarthLevin says:

    But… but… the Team R members on happyfeets’ list are electable!!!

    It’s imperative we keep away from the squishes in primaries and leave them alone because … well … O’Donnell!!!!

  11. JD says:

    This is the same FDA that is trying to ban alcohol and caffeine, no?

  12. A globalized food network? Just continue to label the food with the country or state of origin, and let me make my own decisions. If veggies from some country with lax pesticide controls show up in my market, I’ll just avoid them.

  13. happyfeet says:

    all the food I ate all year so far has been very tasty and I didn’t get sick not even once and I eat ghetto food and lunch truck food and I had spams once even

  14. DarthLevin says:

    All of this is a Soros-inspired conspiracy to criminalize Carin’s backyard and domestic environs.

    TEH CHICKHENS AR EEEEEVIL!!!

  15. ProfShade says:

    And the government would be reaching into a lot of new places as well.
    …like your esophagus.

  16. JD says:

    I cannot wait for them to declare rare steaks and sashimi as hazards.

  17. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “….though passage is currently at an impasse, stalled by an amendment demanding a ban on earmarks brought by Republican Tom Coburn.”

    – That tool for killing earmarks shouldn’t be over done. You get enough of these asinine bills up for vote and some of them might slip through, even in a lame duck session.

  18. […] under the definition of “small”. Big Government favors Big Toys over small; favors Big Foodover small; favors Big Business over […]

  19. McGehee says:

    I hope somebody goes up against Saxby Chambliss in the 2014 primary.

  20. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I’m hoping with you, McGehee. Our “not really a conservative” republican is on that list, too. But age has caught up with him and he has high tailed it out. Thank goodness. Good riddance Georgie V.

  21. McGehee says:

    The crazy thing is, OI, I would have expected Johnny Isakson to be more squishable than Saxby. Oh well, live and learn.

  22. SDN says:

    Well, JD, there’s always Pate de Bureaucrat Liver, with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

  23. SDN says:

    Unfortunately, BBH, there aren’t that many tools available until we vote some more of the Senator Tools out.

  24. SDN says:

    I expect someone to do a land office business producing a program similar to Turbo Tax that fills these suckers out automatically.

  25. Stephanie says:

    Isakson is a sponsor of the Fair Tax Bill. But he and Saxby are disappointing. Saxby is big buds with McConnell. Stupidity is a communicable disease.

  26. McGehee says:

    I asked Isakson (and Chambliss too, but he didn’t answer) whether he supported letting Princess Lisa keep her perks after she started her write-in campaign, and the reply makes it sound like he wanted someone else in her ranking-member spot on one committee.

    Of course, I phrased my question in what could be considered a loaded manner so it’s possible the answer was phrased to be disarming.

    Anyway, Chambliss is in his second term, and Isakson just won his second term. Time for some de facto term limits on both of ’em.

Comments are closed.