Many of the most significant biological food contaminations during recent memory (spinach, onions, tomatoes) have resulted from agricultural practices which introduced pathogens into interstate packaging and marketing chains. The emphasis of the new law, and the media's line of questions, further obscures the need to invest in modern agriculture and food processing practices and systems not simply FDA regulation capacity.

The law requires signifuicant increases in documentation of farm management practices and produce handling which will be passed on to consummers. It will also cause further consolidation of farmland into large operators which will ultimately also have economic and ecological consequences. Asking taxpayers to cover additional regulatory oversight, without a commensurate balance of incentives for the agriculture and food industry modernization, does not reflect the title or original intent of the law.

The bill very clearly exempts smaller farms and facilities that would be at an economic disadvantage. The increase in documentation is to be within reason and not be such that it is not able to be fulfilled by smaller businesses. With an increase in prevention, businesses should see fewer recalls and lawsuits, and therefore ultimately save money. The cost of food safety should not mean an increase in the cost of food.

This coupled with the increased outbreak surveillance (in order to catch outbreaks before they grow), increased inspections (to catch problems before they start), increased foreign inspections (to catch problems before they reach our borders), increased documentation and tracking (to cut of contaminated products before they spread to other businesses), and mandatory recall authority (to stop hazards from reaching consumers) provide the taxpayer with significant return for their dollar. In the end, the reduction in illnesses will save the country money (via reduced healthcare costs, reduced loss of productivity, and many other sources of economic return).