Fast Cars, Safe Food, And Mad Money

You know, I’ve always wanted a Lamborghini. There’s just one problem. I am about a couple hundred grand short of the asking price. The result? I’ll be doing without a Lamborghini.

It seems logical if you don’t have the money, you don’t buy it. But, in Washington-think, this rule doesn’t apply. It reminds me of the much vaunted Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Florida Grower dedicated much of our March issue to detailing the newly signed FSMA. At the time and to this day, there’s a nagging question about this new bill. How are we going to pay for this massive new law and regulations?
Estimates on the price tag of implementing the new law are in the $1.4 billion range over a five-year period. Also, to do what FSMA promises, FDA would need about 18,000 more employees. As the country is turning the corner and becoming more alarmed about its debt, many wondered at the ambitious scale of the FSMA.

One of the big beefs U.S. producers have had is imported foods should be held to the same safety standards as domestic food items. I agree, but the Alliance For A Stronger FDA points out that a decade ago 6 million shipments of FDA-regulated goods came through U.S. ports. Today, the number of shipments has grown to 24 million. The promised increased scrutiny of imported food will cost much more money.

People are scared about food safety and people are scared about our skyrocketing national debt. The politicians have run with both issues, passing the FSMA with all the pronouncements about ensuring only the safest foods for our families. Following on the heels of this, newly elected budget hawks in the U.S. House (in July) proposed cutting $285 million out FDA’s budget — $87 million of which would come from its food safety program.

Back after the salmonella outbreak in 2008 that nearly crippled the tomato industry, many said, “never again.” The ball was already rolling on comprehensive food safety reform and this outbreak, along with another in peanut butter, only helped push a final measure forward.
The President signed the law in January, and from the start, FDA officials have said it is not possible to do this job without more money and people. Michael Taylor, FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods, said at a conference in Texas: “You can’t pretend that all the new programs and systems this law calls for can be achieved without new resources.”

I guess somebody is pretending. Lawmakers want to make points on promoting food safety, but yet many are not prepared to fully fund the process. It makes you wonder how much of this burden will fall back on growers through fees and licenses.
The problem is we live in a world where the government has promised too many things to too many people. When the next outbreak occurs, how will the public react? After all, the FSMA was signed into law in January with all its promises. What the public forgets is it will take years for the massive tentacles of this law to unfold and find its funding — or just add to our debt.

Meanwhile growers, packers, shippers, and retailers are uncertain about the future implications of FSMA. What happens when businesses are uncertain? They tend to slow growth and hire fewer people.