by Eileen Weber
Salmonella. E. coli. Listeria. These are just a few of the scary names that pop up with food borne illnesses. It’s been found in our spinach. It covers our tomatoes. Even peanut butter is not immune.
"We have a crisis in food safety in this country," said Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro in an interview with the Hartford Courant on April 8th. "We've watched nine people die of salmonella poisoning from peanut butter. ... This bill is an attempt to address that issue in a very reasoned and thoughtful [way]."
DeLauro has good reason to be alarmed by the illness rate. According to an April 9th article in The New York Times, the Food Safety Modernization Act, or H.R. 875, is addressing these illnesses in the food that we eat. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) listed 16 in 100,000 people were diagnosed with food-related illnesses. That’s roughly 48,000 people. Only three years earlier, that number was 14 in 100,000 or about 42,000 people.
And that’s only the ones that were diagnosed. It takes someone being sick enough to be hospitalized and the illness to be properly diagnosed. For truly accurate statistics, it gets a little tricky.
It’s because of this kind of information that DeLauro is putting her agenda forward to regulate the food industry. The goal here is to break the Food and Drug Administration into two separate bodies. It will require food companies to meet standards for contaminants in the food they sell. It will also offer a system of certifying safe imports. There will be stricter food inspections, mandatory recalls, and civil penalties for policy violations.
While regulating our food sounds like a noble cause, there are many people who think the bill is not such a good idea. Blogs abound with vehement outrage against the bill. There has been plenty of fodder on YouTube. Shouts of “This is just big government trying to shut down the little guy!” and “It will be the death of all things good, right and organic in this world!”
Commentary: Copenhagen
Feelings were mixed about the end results of the summit. Gordon Brown described the negotiations as "frustrating” and the Obama administration hailed the meeting as an “important breakthrough.” Most notable among the accord’s successes: A commitment by wealthier countries to provide an annual fund of $100 billion by 2020 to countries who do not have the financial resources to develop their industries. With little to no financial backing, these countries must simultaneously follow ever stricter environmental regulations.
Balancing the needs of developing versus developed nations has been a sticking point at previous climate summits. Developing nations have been hesitant to sign an agreement that may cripple their economic advancement. Industrialized nations, on the other hand, have been disdainful of granting more achievable emissions restrictions to their less developed neighbors.
Continue reading "Commentary: Copenhagen" »
Posted at 08:00 AM in Commentary, Current Affairs, Environmental Issues, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: 350.org, climate accord, climate change, climate summit, Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions, Kyoto Protocol, pollution, UN