Safe to Eat? (Issue 3)

The issue over whether or not our food is safe to eat all the time is a large one. Over the last decade, the number of cases of foodborne illnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodborne_illness) has gone up dramatically. There are reasons for this, experts say. The breach in security, per se, can be attributed to the rise in the consumption of produce in an effort to achieve better health. The problem is that produce is often consumed raw, and bacteria have not been killed because of the lacking cooking process. Another reason is due to the growing number of elderly citizens who are more susceptable to illness. Finally, processing and distribution are large-scale, therefore foodborne illnesses are more present on larger scales. The debate ensues whether there should be more regulation by the FDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA), or should the industry place higher regulations on their own companies. Parties in favor of more government regulation believe that one central agency should be in charge, and say that the growth of foodborne illnesses coincide with cuts in funding to the FDA. Others who are in favor of industry regulation believe that the companies want to stay in business, therefore they will protect their businesses by all means, including stricter safety regulations.

These two perspectives are both agreeable in my opinion. Therefore, why is it out of our power to have a government agency watching over our food industry with enhanced regulations, whilst businesses place stricter regulations upon the food coming out of their facilities. This combined power would ensure safer food standards in our country. A source with views similar to mine is http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/26630/traceability-prevent-recover-foodborne.

Issue 1: http://briansoccer77.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-one-comprehensive-vs-incremental.html
Issue 2: http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-2-ensuring-quality-care-for.html