• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

reader (the Second) said:
April 1, 2009

Vilsack hedges on single-agency food regulation

It's premature to say that a single-agency approach is the right route, the agriculture secretary says.

By PHILIP BRASHER
[email protected]

Washington, D.C. -—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appeared to step back Tuesday from earlier comments endorsing the creation of a single food safety agency.

Vilsack told a House agricultural appropriations subcommittee that it was premature to say how food regulation should be organized.

Recent outbreaks and food recalls have forced the Obama administration to focus on food safety.

Fifteen federal agencies have some responsibility for ensuring the safety of food. But the bulk of the responsibility is with the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service, which inspects meat, and the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates most other foods, and those agencies have competing philosophies, Vilsack said.

He said the food safety system should focus on the riskiest products and eliminate "hazards before they have the opportunity to make anyone sick," rather than just try to contain outbreaks.

The Bush administration wanted to focus meat inspections on the highest-risk products, but the plan was delayed amid criticism that the Agriculture Department had insufficient data to know which processors to target.

Before it moves ahead with creating a mandatory animal identification system, the Obama administration also wants to allay the concerns of producers who oppose making any such system compulsory.

Unless those objections are addressed, officials will get tied down chasing producers who are evading the program, Vilsack told the House subcommittee.

An animal identification system is intended to allow investigators to quickly trace the sources of food-borne disease outbreaks.

Vilsack stopped short of explicitly endorsing a mandatory identification program, though he said he is "supportive of the effort to make sure that we have an identification system that will allow us to prevent and/or mitigate problems."

But many cattle producers and small-scale farmers strongly oppose a mandatory system. They cite such concerns as the cost, the potential for lawsuits arising from disease outbreaks, and the confidentiality of records.

Some key lawmakers — including the chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee, Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro — are pressing the administration to set up a mandatory system anyway.

The Bush administration began work on an identification system after the nation's first case of mad cow disease in late 2003, but the program has since languished.

One cattle producers group, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, said the identification system should be restricted to breeding cattle. Bill Bullard, the group's chief executive, said he met with Vilsack in February and urged him to stop pursuing a national identification program that would cover all livestock.

Also Tuesday, Vilsack defended plans to require farmers to allow the USDA to check with the Internal Revenue Service on their eligibility for subsidies.

Vilsack said the USDA would be checking on a "very, very small" number of subsidy recipients. "At some point in time, you have to make sure the payments are getting to the people who are entitled to them and not to the people who aren't," he said.


If there was one lesson that was learned in the AIG and financial crisis it is that one agency having all the authority and no one else is that the risk of that agency getting it wrong is much, much higher.

The states were preempted in the mortgage frauds by the federal laws which did not allow the states to protect its citizens and allowed the federal agency to be sold to the highest bidder.

In the testimony in the Congressional hearings, this problem became very apparent.

States should be able to go into any slaughter house or food producing company and do an inspection like businesses have health inspections. This would also have the affect of keeping the USDA employees on their feet and on their job. They could get caught, not by some PETA hidden camera as they did in California slaughterhouses, but by state regulators who should have no interest in protecting federal agents who don't do their job.

If we don't learn the easy lessons, how in the heck are we going to learn the more complex ones?

Over lapping and independent regulators are a much better answer and one that is less likely to be protected politically by money that has seen to buy our federal regulators and their Congressional and executive overseers.
Top