There was an interesting article in The New York Times on Sunday. It was Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser's review of what the Food Safety Modernization bill (S510) will actually mean to consumers. There has been much debate about the bill, especially how it will fare in the "lame duck" government we now have since the early November elections.
If the thousands of people affected every year from food-borne illnesses are any indication, food regulation is obviously a necessity. The question is can the FDA handle it? To some, as in Jim Prevor's article in The Weekly Standard today, the FDA is a slow-moving behemoth that won't do much more regulation than it already does and will simply increase costs for the average consumer.
The point of the bill is for the FDA to become a proactive agency, rather than a reactive one. Instead of waiting until people get sick, why not protect against the source of contamination before it becomes a problem? It's kind of like safe sex for food groups. Sounds good in theory, but can it be done? Only time will tell.
See an excerpt below from Pollan and Schlosser's article:
A Stale Food Fight
By MICHAEL POLLAN and ERIC SCHLOSSER
Published: November 28, 2010
"THE best opportunity in a generation to improve the safety of the American food supply will come as early as Monday night, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on the F.D.A. Food Safety Modernization bill. This legislation is by no means perfect. But it promises to achieve several important food safety objectives, greatly benefiting consumers without harming small farmers or local food producers.

