Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Self-reporting is key to safe food chain

Rocky Mountain News

Published January 29, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

The outbreak of salmonella that sickened 500 people in 43 states and Canada and may have caused at least eight deaths reveals a gap in federal and state food-safety laws that could easily be fixed.

The Food and Drug Administration said this week that a Georgia peanut plant knowingly shipped peanut butter that had tested positive for salmonella 12 times in the past two years.

Under existing laws and regulations, the company was not required to inform the FDA or state food-safety agencies that its products had tested positive for contamination. "It's just basically a loophole that has been there," a Georgia official told The Associated Press.

The Peanut Corporation of America went ahead and shipped the peanut butter after commissioning a second test from a different lab that came back negative. Whether or not this is an instance of lab shopping until the company got the results it wanted, the positive first test should have set off alarm bells.

The FDA cannot inspect all of the nation's 65,520 food-production plants. In Georgia, it subcontracts inspections to the Georgia Department of Agriculture, but the state has only 60 inspectors for 15,000 sites.

In the absence of sufficient money and manpower to do extensive federal and state inspections, the best solution is to require self-testing and self-reporting. Our food supply is extremely safe, and it's in the interest of everybody, and perhaps most especially the food producers, to ensure it stays that way.

Comments

  • January 29, 2009

    3:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    44roger writes:

    You have to be dreaming if you think self reporting will work, they are going with the odds that it won't be traced and if they make enough profit to cover any fines and make some profit they will do it. I have worked for people like that. A shorter route would be to require the labs to report to the Government.

  • January 29, 2009

    7:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Slimjim_800 writes:

    Self reporting could work if we increase the penalty for non-compliance. In China the people responsible for the tainted milk got the death penalty.

  • January 29, 2009

    8:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mrfxx writes:

    Self-reporting? Like members of the religious community reporting known pedophiles in their midst, members of the medical community reporting "medical professionals" who are guilty of malpractice, members of the legal community who report lawyers who have committed legal malpractice, etc ad nauseum. I'm holding my breath for that to work!

  • January 29, 2009

    9 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    the reason no money is available for food inspections is the republicans would rather spend it on defense contractors like Haliburton and blackwater. or funding a war on Drugs. loosing Billions is nothing if it is a republican.

    the safety of our food is secondary to republicans.
    Self reporting is what they want.

  • January 29, 2009

    1:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    So you are suggesting that the Fox gaurd then Hen House? Give me a break!

  • January 29, 2009

    4:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Wxdano writes:

    Suuuure.

    We see how well self-reporting went on Wall St. And California energy. And thrifts. And, and, and.

    This editorial, surely, is an April Fool's joke.

    Best,

    D

  • January 29, 2009

    5:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    self reporting does work IF there is a backup system of inspections and reporting. A self-reporting entity is held to a highrer standard which means higher fines. It also means unscheduled inspections from at least three totally separate sections, teams or whatever you want to call it. This means you have fewer inspections and more accuracy. The inspections must include the lab test results along with samples taken from all areas.

    An alternative would be large teams that would hit a plant/processing or other food system in all sections at once with at least two people in each section. This would be an incentive for all plants to remain clean.

    A really good idea would be to also limit legal liability for all reported incidents or contaminations provided they were within a reasonable (defined) time limit. Right now there is a roller coaster or crap shoot, you decide, where reporting can get you targeted by every bottom feeding, slimebag lawyer. Not reporting means you have a liability but it is less likely to be traced to you with a direct line that will hold up in court as well as being ambiguous when it comes to actually being tracked down.

    All depends on whether or not you're more interested in food safety or lawsuits.

  • January 29, 2009

    8:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sweetpickle writes:

    A typical utterly stupid RMN editorial comment.
    The "peanut company" will likely put itself out of business, and all the companies they do business with will be damaged. If that wasn't enough to get them to "self report" why do you think giving them another chance would help?

  • January 29, 2009

    9:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    The RMN: "In the absence of sufficient money and manpower to do extensive federal and state inspections, the best solution is to require self-testing and self-reporting."

    Well, isn't this what the peanut company basically did? They hired the testing, and then reported the incident with their recall.