Image: https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/IIWUZFFb5ZbHkyF_pF1lVMJ1e2c=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2423842/154506257.0.jpg

In recent years, the growing amount of genetic modification in our food has increased drastically. More and more consumers express the desire to know exactly what is going into their food, and now legislation is underway to force companies to label food produced with GMO's.

The main argument against labeling GMO foods comes from the companies themselves, who fear that these labels will scare consumers away, but it stems from a fear that if consumers know what companies are hiding in their food, they would move to other brands.

GMO crops are new enough that long-term health effects of their consumption cannot be fully known yet, that being said however, there are plenty of arguments on either side about possible effects they may have, and with the large possibilities of adverse health problems stemming from GMO crops, it seems absolutely necessary that our foods be labelled accordingly if they contain GMO's.

The US is one of few nations that doesn't label GMO products in food. Much of Europe and Asia either label GMO's, impose harsh restrictions on them, or outright ban them. Labels in the US would be an important first step in providing consumers with proper information and legislation is being proposed that would sign this into law. While the effects of GMO food is unknown as positive or negative, consumers have the right to know exactly what they are eating.

Sources:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/05/11/gmo-labeling-pompeo-bill.aspx
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/make-ge-labels-the-law/

The Food Safety Modernization Act

            In this blog post, I would like to talk about the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 which supposedly revamped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To start off, I want to share a story with you. In 2012, 6 year old Owen Carrignan complained about a stomachache after getting home from a friend’s house. Less than a week later, Owen was dead from E. coli. To make matters worse, State Health officials could never find out what contaminated food killed Owen and another person, and eventually closed the investigation.

            I understand that we cannot make the system perfect, but we can always do better. What makes this story truly tragic is that it happened after the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed which supposedly gave the FDA more powers in order to better protect us, and we still have more deaths than any other developed country. The CDC estimates that 1 in 6 Americans get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3000 die of food borne diseases. When compared the France, The United Kingdom, and Australia, which have less than 500 deaths, it seems a little high.

           

            For example, in 2011 a Listeria outbreak, caused by infected Cantaloupes grown in Colorado, killed 33 people and sickened approximately 150 people. Now around four years later, after the changes have been implemented, another Listeria outbreak has occurred, caused by infected Blue Bell products. As of April 21, 2015 ten people have been infected and 3 deaths have occurred. The FDA is not able to follow through on all the new procedures laid out in the Act implemented in 2010, because it has to procure its funding through Congress. And, Congress is lobbied by the Food industry, which has some motivation for keeping the FDA weaker than it should be.

            Congress has provided less than half of the estimated 580 million dollars needed for the FDA to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. The FDA has requested $263 million in their last budget request, with $229 million coming from user fees on food companies. The FDA uses user fees to fund a number of its other programs. Congress, though, has rejected the proposed budget, because of food industry lobbying. Though funding is not the only problem the FDA is facing. The FDA suffers from a condition of under staffing and under training, but those problems could be fixed if the FDA had more money to spend.

            And, to add a nice confusing bureaucratic layer to our food system, the Food Safety Modernization Act, even if the FDA gets funding from Congress, does not apply to 20% of our food supply. Most meats and poultry products are regulated and inspected by the US Department of Agriculture. Slaughterhouses are required to have a USDA inspector, but those inspectors do not have the power to shut down a slaughterhouse or issue a recall if there is a threat.

            In conclusion, the Food Safety Modernization Act has the potential to enact sweeping changes within our food industry, prevent many future deaths, and saves us billions of dollars, but that might be jeopardized because of lack of funding in the present and food industry lobbying. The Act has already provided many benefits. For example, the FDA now has the power to issue recalls on contaminated foods, which is a power it did not have before 2010. All it would take to make the complete adoption of all the changes to the FDA in the Food Safety Modernization Act would be for the Food industry to start paying user fees, and I think $230 million split across several food corporations is a small price for them to pay in order to protect their consumers. 

Food Regulation and its Ranging Effects

The FDA has been under a lot of scrutiny throughout this blog and by many health experts for their haphazard food regulation methods; but if one looks closely, he or she will find that it does contribute helpfully to the health of individuals throughout the United States. Now, this is not to say that the FDA is a perfect institution by any means, for it does have errors. One of which errors is the effects is has on farmers along with consumers. Because of this, the FDA is a controversial organization, contributing to many beneficial, but also detrimental consequences for society.

The FDA recently implemented new regulations in the Food Safety Modernization Act in early 2011, the first big legislation concerning the FDA since 1938. This is a very good thing for consumers, but to farmers, it isn't. Many large farming companies have to change their food production methods, leading to losses. And many small farmers are now required to abandon methods which they had grown accustomed to using for a long time, leading to bankruptcy in occasional circumstances. This is the case for farmers who air cure meats and produce artisan cheeses. Also, because of lack of funding, farmers and companies have to pay the government for its services, which could also lead to more losses and bankruptcy.

Some farmers also exist who have found government organizations', like the US department of Agriculture, regulations to be too overbearing, believing that natural methods are better for the consumer and the environment. For instance, because of the unnatural farming methods developed through increasing regulation, various chemicals have landed in the environment and in our mouths. Also, E. coli, Listeria, and salmonella have become ever more present. Many of these chemicals and diseases stem from unnatural treatment of animals, thus the argument has been made that we should just raise the animals cleanly and naturally. Not to mention, many of the farmers that refuse to adhere to unnatural farming rules have difficulty selling their products to markets and local companies because paperwork and the overall process is too demanding for these companies and farmers to engage. According to Joel Salatin, a small, natural farmer, many of these issues can be combated through finding a local farmer and through looking for packages WITHOUT governmental approval in order to assure its naturalness, a very different action from what we have previously discussed.

http://baylorlariat.com/2011/10/07/editorial-fda-must-improve-food-monitoring-system/

Despite the heat given to the FDA throughout this blog, one can find some positive effects of the FDA's regulation upon the food industry. For instance, in the past decade the amount of food-borne illnesses has dropped drastically and the rates of a myriad of diseases due to food have lowered greatly. The FDA can be attributed as a contributor to these drops in illness. The FDA has also become slightly more productive when investigating, but many things still slide by it. An instance that shows the FDA's proper investigatory skills is when there was a large outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Saintpaul in the US. It was traced back to Mexico, with no sign of it originating in the United States. For investigations like this and others, one could easily support giving money to the FDA to make the nation be healthier and feel safer.

The FDA is and continues to be a large corporation controlling food in our country, drawing many different opinions from the public. But, overall, one can find that the FDA and other government food regulation organizations like the USDA have many ranging results: from being helpful to hurtful, to bringing about necessary and unnecessary change, and to under regulating and over regulating food at different times. 

Sources:

Salatin, Joel. "Sterile Poop." Folks, This Ain't Normal: A Farmer's Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World. New York: Center Street, 2011. 278-292. Print.

"Abstract & Commentary: The FDA and Food Safety Regulation." Infectious Disease Alert 1 June 2011.Student Resources in Context. Web. 2 May 2015.