There are some things we shouldn’t expect the government to do. It can’t keep birds from flying into the paths of airliners or prevent blizzards or hurricanes from occasionally inflicting havoc on the land.
It can’t abolish irresponsible parents or dishonest public officials who use their powers for personal gain.
It can’t entirely regulate or stimulate away economic and business cycles orprotect people from their own greed or lack of foresight.
But can’t it at least keep our peanut butter safe?
The salmonella outbreak that has sickened 500 people and resulted in at least eight deaths illustrates yet another troubling failure of our food-safety laws.
What makes this latest scare even harder to swallow, if you will, is that we now know the Georgia plant where it apparently originated continued shipping out batches of tainted peanut butter even after tests revealed the presence of the bacteria. That sounds like a possible criminal offense, meriting a federal probe and, if probable cause is found, vigorous prosecution of officials at the Blakely, Ga., Peanut Corp. of America plant where four different strains of salmonella have now been found.
Along with some apparently shoddy practices at the plant, this ongoing episode reveals a loophole too easily exploited in the food-checking chain. Under existing regulations, the company was not required to inform the FDA or state food-safety regulators that its product had tested positive for contamination. It simply commissioned a second test from a different lab that produced a different result. The problem didn’t surface until folks started turning up sick ó or worse. Now the entire peanut industry is reeling from the fallout.
With more than 65,000 food-production plants around the country, the FDA lacks the money and manpower to inspect all of them, or independently test all of their products. It relies on companies to monitor their own production processes. But self-regulation can too easily become no regulation. As this debacle shows, the food-testing protocol has some massive loopholes with potentially catastrophic consequences for consumers. Surely there’s a way for the FDA to ensure that federal and state regulators receive reports of possible contamination directly and quickly from the testing lab, rather than allowing companies to self-report the results ó and possibly mask them with a second test that may have been arranged with a less-than-reputable testing site. Surely there’s a way the FDA can exert more stringent external oversight of food manufacturers’ internal controls.
We wouldn’t think of relying on suspected drunken drivers to conduct their own blood-alcohol tests and self-report the results to the authorities, all the while continuing to remain on the road. Do we really want to take such chances with our food supply?