"For years, the food industry and consumer groups have been aligned on the need to modernize the nation’s food safety inspection system. “Food-borne illnesses” — an outbreak of salmonella or E. coli, for instance — are a problem not just for consumers but for industry as well. Recalls are expensive. Sales shrink, even for companies not involved in the recall. Lawsuits ensue. Employees lose their jobs. It can take years to recover from a food scare.
. . . .
When President Obama submitted his 2012 budget to Congress, he asked for $955 million for food safety, a $120 million increase. The increase was necessary, of course, because without the fee, the F.D.A. was going to be hard-pressed as it began the expensive process of changing how it inspected food.
Needless to say, that increase never had a chance either. With the House firmly in Republican hands, it slashed the agency’s food budget by $87 million, to $750 million. That was a staggering $200 million less than the White House had requested, an amount so low that it will make the F.D.A.’s already difficult task nearly impossible."
Well, as someone who almost died from E. coli poisoning earlier this year (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/israel-apartheid-e-coli-and-jimmy.html), I am fully cognizant of the danger from E. coli outbreaks. On the other hand, nowhere in Nocera's column does he detail the number of jobs not being created owing to the reduction of the F.D.A.'s budget for food safety.
Of course, Nocera does tell us that when food-borne illnesses occur, corporate sales shrink, lawsuits ensue and employees lose their jobs - all the more reason for grocery manufacturers to carefully test all their ingredients. Regrettably, however, this does not cause Americans to eat less. If a product of Company X is found to be tainted, Americans are not going to stop eating. Rather, they will more likely to buy instead from Company Y or Company Z. How does this impact upon the job market? Forgive me for being irreverent, but if anything, an E. coli outbreak keeps the lawyers and the legal system busy for years to come.
Moreover, does Nocera wish to claim that there is no fat to be trimmed from the F.D.A.'s food budget? Is the F.D.A. so efficiently run that a 9% cut in its budget is going to destroy its ability to operate? Facts and statistics please.
Sorry, Joe, I would have liked to see you make your point, but this column is a non sequitor.
But as long as we're discussing job creation and the involvement of the federal government, where, Joe, is your column about Solyndra. For that matter, where is there an op-ed from any of the pundits of the New York Times analyzing this scandal, which is certain to rock the Obama administration over the coming year.
Jon Stewart was not afraid to poke fun at this pustule (see: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/09/16/140534741/jon-stewart-skewers-white-house-on-solyndra); however, as best I can see, The New York Times seems to be avoiding the issue like the plague, or apropos Nocera's column of today, like a salmonella outbreak.
But then why would The New York Times not wish to delve into this delicate matter, which could well prove the final nail in Obama's 2012 coffin (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/09/solyndra-final-nail-in-obamas-coffin.html)? Has The New York Times grown overly politicized? My goodness, who would have ever imagined?
No comments:
Post a Comment