IT HAS Been 102 years since Congress passed and President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drug Act. The act was designed to give the government the tools and authority to end the widespread adulteration of food, unsanitary and dangerous practices in packing houses and the inclusion of dangerous substances in patent medicines. It was one of the most sweeping exercises of federal power in the history of the nation.
At the end of the 19th century, much of the nation’s food production had moved out of communities and into the hands of industrial giants. Beef and pork that was raised locally was no longer slaughtered locally. Instead, the animals were shipped off to the big packing houses in Kansas City, Chicago and other distribution centers. There, the techniques of mass production were applied to the production of meat for the country’s burgeoning population.
The same was true for grain. Instead of being milled locally, wheat and corn were loaded into huge fleets of rail cars and shipped to industrial mills to be ground to flour and feed.
In those slaughterhouses and mills, terrible and dangerous things were done in the name of expediency and profit.
The Pure Food and Drug Act put reins on capitalism run wild and brought it under control. The act and succeeding legislation established strict sanitary and purity rules for food producers and established inspection systems to see that the rules were followed.
The recent recall of 143 million pounds of ground beef from a California meat packer is at once an illustration of the tremendous authority the government has to protect the food supply and a troubling illustration of how ineffective the government has become in wielding that power.
The beef in this case was produced months ago. Much of it has no doubt already been eaten — doled out in school cafeterias, packed as canned or frozen chili or added to hundreds of other prepared foods. If the ground beef is capable of doing harm, the harm has likely already been done.
The problem is this: Truly protecting the food supply depends upon rigorous inspection capable of triggering immediate action. But the federal and state agencies charged with inspections do not have the staffs or the training programs necessary to provide rigorous inspection.
In some cases, they also lack the institutional will do their jobs. Too often, regulatory agencies in the food and other industries have been staffed at the higher levels with former lobbyists and executives from the industries they are supposed to be regulating. The result has been a slow easing of enforcement.
Compounding the problem is the globalization of the food industry, which has greatly complicated the job of food inspectors and opened holes in the protective system. One error or one scoundrel at a processing plant can put lives around the world at risk.
For its time, the Pure Food and Drug Act was revolutionary. But times have changed. Government needs new regulations and new tools to protect the public in these new times.
Isn’t past time to begin asking candidates — for president, Congress or state legislatures — what they would do to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply?
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
roger (anonymous) says...
Big business such as Tyson doesn't want the oversight. They have most politicians who can make a difference bought and paid for or at least intimidated. We need to vote out business as usual and work for the good of our country instead of just the good of big business. We need to research where most of the political contributions come from. If this is posted twice please forgive me, my internet connection crashed just as I was posting like usual.
February 28, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
Lets go back to more locally produced food. Seems simple enough to me. Saving a few cents on Chinese wheat gluten ended up costing Menu millions. You have to look at the total cost of "cheap" food and ingredients.
February 28, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )