If I Had a Magic Wand for Food Safety
Opinion

© Food Safety News
More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles »
© Food Safety News
More Headlines from Opinion & Contributed Articles »"...rate corporations on long-term sustainability...Food corporations should be valued for excellent food safety records and for maintaining high ethical standards in every aspect of their business."
Yet another definition of "sustainable": food safety and ethical standards.
'Sustainability' has become one of the most bastardized and meaningless buzzwords of our generation.
It is now a true synonym for supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
[soo-per-kal-uh-fraj-uh-lis-tik-ek-spee-al-i-doh-shuhs]
–adjective
(used as a nonsense word by children to express approval.)
[sus-tane-a-bull]
-adjective
(used as a nonsense word by child-like dreamers to express approval. Also employed as a weapon by activist zealots to attack anything they disapprove of.)
Thank you, Mary Poppins and Marion Nestle
If I had a magic wand for food safety, we wouldn't need a regulatory agency at all. That is as unrealistic as having zero risk of foodborne illness.
Rather than a wand, I see an executive committee screen saver on their cell phones and computers. Here they are greeted each day with a reminder of their personal commitment to the well being of their consumer."It's job one" and it's not magic, just common sense.
This screen saver then morphs to serve up a P&L for the day. Here is the magic - it has a safety standard in the form of a Go-No-Go gauge for each of the day's executive decisions.
This eliminates the dangers of gradualism where well intentioned employees are rewarded for ideas to save and grow at the expense of a poorly written, poorly understood and never enforced standard.
A few quick observations:
Were a new "Food Agency" to be created, what would happen to safety problems associated with drugs and with medical devices?
WHICH agency would be responsible for regulating so-called "dietary supplements" - the stuff that looks and is packaged like medicines, makes vague "not quite medicinal" claims, and is marketed in a manner more associated with drugs than with foods?
When will Congress awaken to the stupidity of allowing prescription drugs to be advertised to the public in the mass media? Doctors are placed in an untenable position when a patient demands a prescription for "X," when "X" is totally unsuitable for the patient. I see no harm in advertising prescription drugs in professional medical journals, this at least keeps physicians somewhat up-to-date on what may be available, but the general public is too ignorant to decide that "X" is better than "Y" for a particular condition.
It'll take LOTS more than a "Magic Wand."
If I had a magic wand I would do a lot more than just fix the food safety. I would take the advice of Shakespeare; "First we kill all the lawyers!"
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI. Act IV, Scene II). Spoken by the character Dick the Butcher.
A killer and a vulgar villain, Dick the Butcher was a follower of Jack Cade. As to Jack Cade, the real-life Jack Cade led a short rebellion that featured the looting of London and the decapitation of several men.
Shakespeare was apparently not a fan of Cade. To say Shakespeare was a fan of all lawyers would almost certainly be too bold. Still, these are the words of a character in a play. Shakespeare should be allotted some poetic license, or else how might we thank him for the conflicts he left us on the page?
Steven -
Have you any idea of the massive bureaucracy that your proposal would require? If such a series of agencies were to be attempted at the federal level, there would be all kinds of constitutional problems. The question of the Federal government REQUIRING such a rigorous series of tests to be made at all levels would raise a great hue and cry as to COST - testing is NOT cheap at any level, and repeated duplicative tests would do much less for food safety than they would to increase the costs of all foods.
Your proposals would die a million deaths in litigation, at phenominally great expense.