Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Poll: Most NV Voters Support Food Safety Bill

Poll Puts Pressure on Senate Majority Leader to Schedule Food Safety Bill for a Vote

Eighty-two percent of Nevada voters say they support the food safety legislation pending in the Senate, according to a poll (pdf) released yesterday by the Make Our Food Coalition in a move to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

“Voters across the political spectrum in Nevada strongly endorse passing the food safety legislation currently before the U.S. Senate,” according to the survey results, published by Hart Research Associates and conducted on behalf of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Produce Safety Project. The poll surveyed 504 voters across Nevada in late June.  

Here are some of the highlighted findings (pdf) from the survey:

-73 percent of voters say it is important for Congress to pass legislation to strengthen food safety standards and better protect consumers from contaminated foods, including 49 percent who say this is very important.

-84 percent say that ensuring food safety is the government’s responsibility; just 11 percent say this is something for which the government should not have responsibility.

-Support for this legislation crosses all demographic and partisan lines. Eighty-three percent of voters under age 50 favor the legislation, as do 78 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds and 86 percent of seniors.

-90 percent of Democrats favor the legislation, as do 86 percent of unaffiliated and independent voters, and 71 percent of Republicans.

NV-food-safety-poll.jpg“Indeed, at a time of heightened partisan division, this issue garners an unusually high level of support among Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike,” said the summary of findings. “They see ensuring food safety as the federal government’s responsibility, believe it is important that stronger food safety measures be put in place, and favor the specific legislation currently in Congress by a margin of nearly seven to one.”

Food safety advocates hope the poll will help put pressure on the Senate Majority Leader to bring the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act to a vote. The House passed a similar bill in July 2009, but the Senate version has languished behind other legislative priorities.

Reid faces a tough fight to win reelection this fall. The RealClearPolitics polling average shows him trailing Republican opponent Sharron Angle by a few points. 

© Food Safety News
  • hhamil

    The statement, “Eighty-two percent of Nevada voters say they support the food safety legislation pending in the Senate,” is NOT true.
    Rather, this is a good example of a push poll manipulation of those polled.
    The poll carefully misrepresents the legislation and the efforts of those of trying to change it. The legislation was described as follows: “Congress is considering legislation to strengthen food safety standards and better protect consumers from contaminated food. This legislation would increase the frequency of government inspections of food facilities, create a tracing system that would make it easier to trace back contaminated food to its original
    source, give the FDA the ability to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated food, and certify that food
    imported from other countries was produced with safety standards as high as those in the United States.”
    It then asked, “Would you favor or oppose passing THIS food safety legislation?”
    Those polled knew only that tiny, incomplete, misleading description of the legislation; so to say “Voters across the political spectrum in Nevada strongly endorse passing the food safety legislation currently before the U.S. Senate” shows how the Make Our Food Safe Coalition (MOFS) is attempting to manipulate the political process.
    MOFS is engaging in the shady politics it loves to decry elsewhere.
    How sad that Food Safety News’ advocacy is getting in the way of its reporting.

  • Harry Hamil

    The statement, “Eighty-two percent of Nevada voters say they support the food safety legislation pending in the Senate,” is NOT true.
    Rather, this is a good example of a push poll manipulation of those polled.
    The poll carefully misrepresents the legislation and the efforts of those of trying to change it. The legislation was described as follows: “Congress is considering legislation to strengthen food safety standards and better protect consumers from contaminated food. This legislation would increase the frequency of government inspections of food facilities, create a tracing system that would make it easier to trace back contaminated food to its original
    source, give the FDA the ability to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated food, and certify that food
    imported from other countries was produced with safety standards as high as those in the United States.”
    It then asked, “Would you favor or oppose passing THIS food safety legislation?”
    Those polled knew only that tiny, incomplete, misleading description of the legislation; so to say “Voters across the political spectrum in Nevada strongly endorse passing the food safety legislation currently before the U.S. Senate” shows how the Make Our Food Safe Coalition (MOFS) is attempting to manipulate the political process.
    MOFS is engaging in the shady politics it loves to decry elsewhere.
    How sad that Food Safety News’ advocacy is getting in the way of its reporting.

  • Ann Quinn, consumer

    Hey, Harry, I’m a Nevada voter. I know all the parts of
    the food safety bill you reference, including those you
    object to. I’m 100 percent for it.
    I hope my Senator Reid, despite his dismal record of responding
    with idiot box precanned statements to letters about food safety since 2007, hasn’t forgotten who votes for or against him and who he actually represents. Nevada families want
    safer food in the grocery stores, and this is a first step to get it.

  • Doc Mudd

    The remarkable outcome of this survey is that upward of 20% of those polled do not prefer safe food! A major portion of those must be unregulated food producers and merchandizers who fear food safety standards will cut into their grubby profit.
    Step up, clean up and don’t be surprised when 75-80% of us who care about food safety gratefully reward you with our grocery dollar in preference to risking our family’s health purchasing from some fast-talking, corner-cutting operator who cares nothing about our welfare, cares only for their own bottom line.

  • hhamil

    Sadly, Ms. Quinn, S 510 will have the opposite effect. It will stop the growth of the safest food in America–food produced for local markets by small producers and processors.
    S 510/HR 2749 will require formal food safety plans in segments of the food industry where they simply do NOT work as pointed out by world renowned HACCP expert, microbiologist Dr. William Sperber in his paper, “HACCP does not work from farm to table” (http://www.net-lanna.info/food/Articles/11014080.pdf).
    S 510/HR 2749 will wipe out most of the local, healthy food movement because of the financial burden of compliance. Furthermore, they will make is virtually impossible to for young farmers to make a full-time living farming.
    As you, Ms. Quinn, are certain that you understand the provisions of the bill which I’m referencing, I urge you to make a reality check on your knowledge and contact me directly so that we can exchange info. I can be reached at healthyfoodcoalition@gmail.com or call me at 828/669-4003, 8 AM – 8 PM Eastern Time, Monday – Saturday.
    Finally, once again, as expected, Doc Mudd is a shill for S 510 and can’t understand that a person responding to a push poll could ever disagree with the hogwash s/he has been given.
    As is obvious from a good web search, the primary opponents to the current version of S 510 are small growers, packers, distributors and processors AND consumers. Industrial ag supports it. Over 600 customers of just 2 tailgate markets in NC signed letters thanking Sen. Hagan for her co-sponsorship of the Tester amendments.
    When given the full facts consumers oppose the present version of S 510.

  • Harry Hamil

    Sadly, Ms. Quinn, S 510 will have the opposite effect. It will stop the growth of the safest food in America–food produced for local markets by small producers and processors.
    S 510/HR 2749 will require formal food safety plans in segments of the food industry where they simply do NOT work as pointed out by world renowned HACCP expert, microbiologist Dr. William Sperber in his paper, “HACCP does not work from farm to table” (http://www.net-lanna.info/food/Articles/11014080.pdf).
    S 510/HR 2749 will wipe out most of the local, healthy food movement because of the financial burden of compliance. Furthermore, they will make is virtually impossible to for young farmers to make a full-time living farming.
    As you, Ms. Quinn, are certain that you understand the provisions of the bill which I’m referencing, I urge you to make a reality check on your knowledge and contact me directly so that we can exchange info. I can be reached at healthyfoodcoalition@gmail.com or call me at 828/669-4003, 8 AM – 8 PM Eastern Time, Monday – Saturday.
    Finally, once again, as expected, Doc Mudd is a shill for S 510 and can’t understand that a person responding to a push poll could ever disagree with the hogwash s/he has been given.
    As is obvious from a good web search, the primary opponents to the current version of S 510 are small growers, packers, distributors and processors AND consumers. Industrial ag supports it. Over 600 customers of just 2 tailgate markets in NC signed letters thanking Sen. Hagan for her co-sponsorship of the Tester amendments.
    When given the full facts consumers oppose the present version of S 510.

  • Doc Mudd

    “…Doc Mudd is a shill…”
    Aw, stuff it, Harry.
    Doc Mudd is a common citizen proponent of verifiably safe food (and not your fantasized “we’re safest because we say so” faux assurance). Doc Mudd has nothing against you or your tres chic hobby farmer friends posturing and puffing to make a buck or two off gullible grocery shoppers…but you will have to clean up and meet standardized quality criteria, just like everyone else; that’s all this is about.
    Point of fact: S.510 in no way singles out or discriminates against “young farmers” as spuriously claimed. That pretense is patently absurd…and intentionally misleading, inexcusably theatrical. Let’s guess, why must opponents of S.510 gravitate toward sensational distraction? Hmmm…
    S.510 will cause farmers and food processors of all sizes and types to clean up, be traceable and become fully accountable for product they intend to sell to trusting consumers. That is not unreasonable. Why do you fear that, Harry? Who are you shilling for? Why do you never mention consumer safety or consumer satisfaction; why are these vital concerns not prioritized always at the very tip-top of your to-do list? Is everything with you and your handlers about merely maximizing the grubby profits of theatrically quaint producers, and to hell with the dime-a-dozen rube customers?
    Understand, Harry, that consumers are in the majority. And, when the majority of consumers are accurately informed, they overwhelmingly prefer the reassurance of verifiably safe food for their families. Dubious superficial marketing campaigns can go only so far before they are exposed for the unfounded nonsense they are.

  • hhamil

    The only thing that I can agree with the person hiding behind the pen name “Doc Mudd” is that the “consumers are in the majority.”
    And over 600 of them on a single day at 4 locations in NC signed letters thanking Sen. Hagan for co-sponsoring with Sen. Tester amendments exempting small facilities and small growers from certain ADDITIONAL and inappropriate regulations in S 510. In no way, did it exempt them from everything in S 510 and it did not do away with any existing regulation.

  • Harry Hamil

    The only thing that I can agree with the person hiding behind the pen name “Doc Mudd” is that the “consumers are in the majority.”
    And over 600 of them on a single day at 4 locations in NC signed letters thanking Sen. Hagan for co-sponsoring with Sen. Tester amendments exempting small facilities and small growers from certain ADDITIONAL and inappropriate regulations in S 510. In no way, did it exempt them from everything in S 510 and it did not do away with any existing regulation.

  • Doc Mudd

    Well then, you’re off to a start (albeit a slow start) with 600 signatures in a state populated by 9.8 million eaters, in a nation of some 300 million food consumers.
    That’s 0.006% and 0.0002% respectively. Yep, it’s a start.

  • hhamil

    Another good example of “Doc Mudd’s” analysis. LOL. He compares the number of signatures at 4 locations in a few hours of a single day with the total number of people in NC and the country.
    It is a counterpoint to his unsupported claim that “when the majority of consumers are accurately informed, they overwhelmingly prefer the reassurance of verifiably safe food for their families.” That, of course, is like asking if your favor apple pie. A good example of the “verifiably safe food” is the recent second lettuce recall from Fresh Express that is seen as going well beyond the requirements of S 510. Yet, the verifiability claim is meaningless.

  • Harry Hamil

    Another good example of “Doc Mudd’s” analysis. LOL. He compares the number of signatures at 4 locations in a few hours of a single day with the total number of people in NC and the country.
    It is a counterpoint to his unsupported claim that “when the majority of consumers are accurately informed, they overwhelmingly prefer the reassurance of verifiably safe food for their families.” That, of course, is like asking if your favor apple pie. A good example of the “verifiably safe food” is the recent second lettuce recall from Fresh Express that is seen as going well beyond the requirements of S 510. Yet, the verifiability claim is meaningless.

  • Doc Mudd

    “Yet, the verifiability claim is meaningless.”…in the notably biased, unverifiable and meaningless opinion of a trendy farm market landlord.
    I’m not prepared to casually trust my family’s safety to anyone with such a transparent conflict of interest.