Safe to Eat?

America is a country with many health-concious citizens, but even as people try to make healthy eating choices there are growing concerns over the safety of fresh produce and meats in U.S. markets. Food-poisoning epidemics have made headlines many times in the past few years. In 2006 an outbreak of the dangerous E.coli bacteria in bagged spinach killed three people, and made more than 200 others ill. This case is just one of many similar occurances. The increase in food-bourne illnesses can be attributed to several things. First, as more Americans strive towards healthier living they eat greater quantities of raw produce, which is more likely to contain harmful microorganisms which aren't killed without the cooking process. Also, the population demographics of the U.S. are shifting, and a larger percentage of the population is made up of elderly people, who are more at risk from food-bourne toxins. Lastly, agriculture is becoming centralized, and production and packaging are taking place on large scales. Because of this, an outbreak from one area can affect the whole country. Many people believe that the government must reform food safety standards to protect consumers. At the moment the government relies on self-regulation by the industry, and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to regulate produce, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture strictly regulates meat and poultry. After so many safety breaches in recent times, many Americans have called for the formation of a single government food safety agency. One agency could better enforce more specific rules for growing, handling, and processing fruits and veggies. More funding also is needed to make the agency more effective. Other people however argue that this plan will only raise price of food on consumers, and reverse recent healthy eating trends. They suggest that the best solution is to let the industry self-regulate, because in order for the industry to succeed it must win consumer trust by becoming safer. It can do this better than any government agency. Should the U.S. do more to protect safety of consumers?

I think that food poisoning scares are becoming far to common in this country. Something must be wrong with the current food-regulation system, so something must be changed. There is no question that the government should have very high and very strict standards on producers to ensure that U.S. consumers can shop at grocery stores without fear. Somehow bad products must be prevented or caught before they reach the shelves. I agree that the food industry itself can probably react faster and more effectively than the government to raise safety standards, after all their income depends entirely on consumer trust. So, a certain degree of self-regulation is necessary so that the industry can become better for its own good. At the same time I feel much safer with the knowledge that every food producer is held to the highest standard by a third party. The FDA, Dept. of Agriculture, or one giant government agency should always be closely scrutinizing every detail of the industry. Enforcing regulations and laws, etc. I think that creating one agency would be more efficient in the long run, leaving less loopholes for epidemics to slip through. The possibility that food prices might rise slightly from more responsibility in the food industry is totally worth the lives that could be saved by preventing unsafe foods. The bottom line is we need to make food safe again, catching bad food before its too late. Many politicians share my opinion on this topic, including Senator Gillibrand of New York who recently proposing legislation to eliminate E.coli from the U.S. food system. "E.coli Eradication Act"

To learn about two other health care issues check out:

• Randee's Blog on Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform.


• Sarah's Blog on Ensuring Quality Care for Medicare Patients