Food Safety in 2009: Obama, Vilsack, FDA, Senate on Naughty X-Mas List



The food safety landscape after the first year of the Obama administration remains very similar to the last year of the Bush administration….

During a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, President Obama gave himself a letter grade of B+ for his first year in office. But all the same, an ad hoc consortium of food safety professionals, food safety advocates, and food safety writers say he deserves some coal in his Christmas stocking. Food Safety News, the best online publication for all aspects of the safety of the global food supply, is running a list of who’s been naughty and who’s been nice this year in food safety. The list was created after polling those mentioned above, including your intrepid blogger. There was an overwhelming consensus that large chunks of coal should be deposited in the Christmas stockings of both President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for the failure to name someone to lead USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, which monitors meat, poultry and eggs.

Sure, the President and Sec. Vilsack inherited huge problems…but after almost a year in office–and multiple Class I (you could die) recalls for contaminated beef–where’s the FSIS Under Secretary? Perhaps Santa himself will be delivering a sprightly, smarty-pants elf from Toyland, to monitor the nation’s food supply in 2010? Because elves might be the only individuals who can pass the conflict-of-interest test…which is the “official” reason no one has been appointed as Under Secretary for Food Safety. The President also gets some coal for attempting to let free trade trump food safety issues, and for his lunch visit to the aptly named Ray’s Hell Burger, which had been cited for food safety violations for under cooking its burgers. The FDA is also awarded coal on the naughty list, because it’s been engaging in the dubious activities cited below, and the entire Senate warrants mention, too.

The “Nice List” will be published tomorrow–and the President and Sec. Vilsack are on that list, too–but here’s the Naughty List:

Get the latest articles in your inbox.

NAUGHTY: President Obama for NOT appointing a new permanent U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Food Safety. ALSO NAUGHTY: USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack for making excuses about it. (See “FSIS Remains Leaderless,” Oct. 16, 2009)

NAUGHTY: The Senate for being too slow on health care reform to pass meaningful–and decades overdue–food safety legislation before the Holidays. (Ed. note: The House passed food safety legislation in July)

NAUGHTY: Secretary Vilsack and White House for trying, in the name of free trade, to roll over Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn) efforts to assure that the US does not permit poultry processors from shipping raw poultry meat from the US to China for processing and shipping back to the US for sale until USDA has determined that China’s inspection program is equivalent to ours. (See “Deal Reached on Poultry Imports,” Sep 27, 2009)

NAUGHTY: The FDA staff that keeps appealing to consumer advocates, “don’t set us up to fail,” when consumer advocates push for more inspection. They never say, “help us get the law and resources we need to protect people.”


NAUGHTY: J. Patrick Boyle of the American Meat Institute for trying to dynamite the Senate food safety bill even though it doesn’t have anything to do with the meat industry.

NAUGHTY: State public health department officials attending the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference in October who put industry profits ahead of public health.

NAUGHTY: Weston A. Price Foundation for more denial of outbreaks and giving consumers false information about raw milk safety.

NAUGHTY: FDA for its failure to control ridiculous health claims like Kellogg’s claiming that Cocoa Krispies are a “Smart Choice” because it “helps support your child’s immunity.”

NAUGHTY: Some raw milk, small and sustainable agriculture advocates who confused the entire food safety debate by making and circulating false claims about the food safety bills. It really is about food safety, and is not a gigantic conspiracy by Monsanto to wipe out organic and backyard farms!

NAUGHTY: Washington State University for removing Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma” from the Common Reading Program. (The book was restored after monetary interventions by Bill Marler.)

NAUGHTY: The FDA for caving to political pressure and backing down on oyster regulations. (See “Under Pressure, FDA Puts Oyster Policy On Hold,” Nov 14, 2009)

NAUGHTY: President Obama and Vice-President Biden for ordering undercooked hamburgers for the Press Corps at a DC restaurant with less than stellar inspection reports.

NAUGHTY: Stewart Parnell, President of Peanut Corporation of America, for asking for nearly $1 million from his bankrupt business for his own criminal defense fund after shipping peanuts his own tests showed were contaminated with Salmonella that sickened over 700 and killed at least nine. (See “PCA Executives To Divide $875,000,” Dec 11, 2009)

NAUGHTY: FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the U.S. District Attorney in Georgia for moving so slowly with the criminal investigations of the Peanut Corporation of America and its executives, including Stewart Parnell. (See “One Year Later, Still no Charges for PCA,” Nov 07, 2009)

Originally posted on Obama Foodorama.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

View Comments (8)

  1. CC
    Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
    Any chance we could get more details on the Weston A. Price point? I hadn't heard anything and I'd be really interested to know more.
  2. Angela
    Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
    If the Food Safety Bill is really about food safety, then the language used to write the statutes should be focused on those countries/companies/processes that are most often in violation of the current food safety laws.

    When such broad and sweeping laws are proposed on a segment of the ag industry that is low risk, while high-risk and repeat offenders continue to escape without consequence, you will pardon us small growers for thinking that there's a major power grab going on.

    Write the regs to address the perpetrators and those who enable them to game the system. If you leave the small growers alone, they won't "confuse" the political waters by trying to protect themselves from massive bureaucratic overreach.
  3. bryant hudson
    Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
    Food safety is important. Small farms produce superior food. The bill before the senate hurts small farms and must be fixed. The net effect of the current bill is bad. Your support of the bill indicates to me that you don't understand civil eats.

    Sincerely,
    Bryant Hudson
    Norman, Oklahoma
  4. Thursday, December 24th, 2009
    For some holiday cheer:

    http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/case-news/science-and-eggnog-raw-eggs-and-alcohol-can-a-favorite-holiday-drink-be-made-safe/
  5. Ron Wilson
    Thursday, December 24th, 2009
    I, along with many others, have consumed raw milk without a problem. I challenge you to visit the Weston A. Price Foundation Raw Milk pages and read for yourself why raw milk, harvested in sanitary conditions is healthy and safe. Hope you will do so.
  6. sally oakley
    Thursday, December 24th, 2009
    i'd rather drink raw milk any day even having sat on the counter all day, than any milk from a processor that cooks all the nutrients out of it. read "Real Food" by nina planck. and just go to the website for westona a price and see what they have to say.. they aren't squeamish about the debate at all.. (i'm a big fan).. do your own research.. crickey...
  7. Andrew
    Thursday, December 24th, 2009
    When people die from food poisoning, the product in question is recalled, news headlines are made, and the company responsible is allowed to continue operating, with its executives free from criminal prosecution. The Peanut Corp. of America, an exception to the rule, might be charged with violating FDA regulations, but not with the wrongful deaths of the people who ate their processed peanuts.

    As long as you comply with food safety regulations, your food can kill hundreds of people, and you will face no criminal repercussions. We do have a food safety problem in this country, and subjecting small-scale farmers and yogurt-makers to onerous new rules will not fix it. The vast majority of food deaths are caused by companies that are ALREADY INSPECTED by the FDA. Why do we think that we can make food safer by empowering the FDA to inspect the woman who sells vegetables are your local farmers' market? (And why do you think that lobbyists for agribusiness, like the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are urging Congress to do just that? It's no secret: http://www.gmabrands.com/news/docs/NewsRelease.cfm?DocID=1944 )

    We can reduce death by food poisoning in the same way that we have reduced wrongful deaths for centuries: by criminal prosecution. If it is beyond a reasonable doubt that your negligence led directly to the death of another human being, then you should be a criminal. Why is it not so?
  8. Ben
    Saturday, December 26th, 2009
    I'm guessing the Weston Price thing is linked to this:
    http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/09/22/weston-price-foundation-makes-statement-on-wisconsin-raw-milk-outbreak/

    However, the statement issued certainly makes me wonder about how the outbreak was reported, and I'm inclined to think there's something odd about the sampling mechanisms used. I'd love to see the rebuttal on why it is "false information".