FDA and USDA Our Regulations are Costly and Risking Our Lives

Overlap of government organizations is nothing new, but it is causing us undue difficulties with food contamination. Combine this with knowledge that often foods which come from foreign nations often are contaminated and it is  creating a toxic food supply for our nation. The way we have divided the responsibility of inspecting our imported food may prevent us from fully resolving the issue.

Two government agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), share the majority of the responsibility of food safety inspection. The rules that determine which agency is responsible for which food can be complex, and sometimes it defies categorization altogether.

One good example of this is inspections of eggs. The FDA inspects shelled eggs, while the USDA is responsible for inspecting egg products, including liquid, frozen and dehydrated eggs. Further examples abound. The FDA regulates feed the chickens eat, but the laying facility falls under USDA regulation. Open-faced sandwiches under the USDA, while closed-face sandwiches are inspected by the FDA. The FDA is in charge of  regulating bagel dogs, while the USDA is in charge of corn dogs.

This may sound confusing; it’s because it is.

For example, an investigation into the Salmonella outbreak in Iowa eggs may be complicated by the fact that the USDA is responsible for the pile of manure next to the laying facility, but the FDA is accountable for the danger of the eggs themselves.

The USDA conducts continuous daily inspections of foods in its domain(especially meat), whereas FDA inspections have no regular schedule. The FDA is only more likely to inspect an installation after a tip about a possible food safety violation, so random inspections can occur up to 10 years apart or, in some cases, not at all. The reason they don’t inspect more is because they simply don’t have the funding to do so.

This becomes even more frustrating when it comes to food imports. While the USDA conducts inspections of all meat and poultry, the FDA is tasked with other items including most types of fish and shrimp. The FDA is only able to inspect 2% of all food imports into the U.S., leaving the vast majority uninspected.

Between 1998 and 2007, U.S. food imports grew from $41 billion to $78 billion per year. Now, about 85% of the seafood Americans eat comes from outside the country, and as much as 60% of U.S. fresh produce isimported.

TheAlabama Department of Agriculture tested 258 samples of catfish and a related species from China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia from 2002 to 2010. Forty-four percent of samples tested positive for an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia and tuberculosis. The FDA banned the same antibiotic for use in fish in 1997.

Foods turned away by the FDA have been found to contain illegal fungicides, antibiotics, and sometimes even fecal matter. 

With these side by side dual roles, the U.S. would be much better served by having one agency tasked with inspecting domestic food and another tasked with inspecting foreign food. Charging an inspection fee upon arrival, it could be added, would help pay for these services.

Eliminating duplicative roles in food inspection would save time and money and ensure that a greater percentage of our food is inspected to keep our food supply safe. It would make sure there is a standard operating procedure for inspecting all food and make sure that regular inspections occur on a timely basis. Investigations would be easier to conduct and regulations would be more streamlined. 

This would make it easier for corporations to know how to navigate the system, and encourage similar standards for all food. As newer technologies become available that increase the efficiency of testing , they can be introduced more quickly, ensuring even better methods of testing. It is easy to understand that it would be incredibly expensive to inspect 100% of imports, but 2% is unacceptable. 

We need to protect our food supply by enacting changes that both eliminate government waste and increase  the efficiency of food safety inspections.

Do Members of Congress Get their pay for life?

One thing we want to do is try to have an opportunity to answer some simple questions with our posts, today we will be starting a new series called political dummies, where we will use posts and videos to help people understand more clearly what is going on in the world. Sometimes we will even be fact checkers.

Today I wanted to start with a common misconception which keeps on getting brought up and reposted, but which is not true.

This claim is a classic in its own right. The urban legend checker Snopes.com says it has been circulating in various chain emails since at least 2000. Both claims seem to point to all members of Congress no matter how long they have served, including one term Representatives.

The claim means that rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives would receive full pay of $174,000 per year, for the rest of their lives, after serving as little as two years.

Nice work if you can get it. But members of Congress can't.

A report on "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," prepared in November by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), outlines how pension benefits are to be calculated. Members of Congress are part of the federal retirement system, and as such they fall under the same rules.

The key provision: no member of Congress is eligible for any pension unless he or she has served in Congress(or other federal position) for at least five years. (Senators serve six-year terms; House members must seek reelection every two years.)

To collect, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.

Under the most recent pension program, adopted in 1984, the size of a pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7 percent for the first 20 years of service and 1.0 percent for subsequent years.

Here’s an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year. The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $172,443 [the average salary over the last three years] times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $172,443 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,250 per year.

A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,588 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay.

Federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full-pay retirement when they leave office. The report says, "By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary."

Under the formula, it would take 67 years of service to hit that limit. Considering the minimum age requirements for members of congress (30 for senator 25 for house), as well as it being very unlikely that members of Congress would be reelected enough times or not retire before that point this is unlikely.

So this meme saying that members of Congress can "receive full pay retirement after serving one term" is blatantly bogus. It's never full pay and the only one-term members who would be eligible for any pension would be senators.

TPP and Fast Track, Why Do They Matter?

As our economy continues to struggle, Congress has a new issue that lies before it, whether or not to approve fast track trade authority and eventually the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP). The TPP is a trade agreement with a dozen or so countries in the pacific region including, the U.S., Canada, Australia, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, and Japan. South Korea, Taiwan and China have additionally expressed interest in the partnership.

Source Wikipedia.org

Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority as it is also called, grants the President permission to make and sign any trade deal with another country. Once signed, it will then be sent to Congress, where they must vote on it with only an up/down vote. There would be no committee session on the agreements, no possibility of a filibuster or amendments, debates would be limited in length, and the bill would be required to be voted on within a 90 day period from the time it is introduced. 

Earlier this month a fast track bill was submitted to congress, and President Obama has made it known that he wants to use Fast Track Authority to sign two trade agreements that could have significant impact on the American economy and have lasting effects on the U.S. sovereignty.

 The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would economically unite a dozen countries of the Pacific in vastly different states of development and who have radically different standards for worker rights, consumer safety and environmental protection.

Similar to previous free trade agreements such as NAFTA and KORUS, there is much dissatisfaction in some groups who see it as a corporate sellout, shipping jobs overseas while increasing imports of cheap goods to the U.S. Many opponents look at some of the included countries such as Japan as currency manipulators, and feel that the current fast track language does not protect against further manipulation, especially if China were to enter the agreement.

Those who are for the TPP say that it will open doors for the U.S. to modernize some of the third world countries included in the agreement. Additionally the U.S. would see some decreasing tariffs on goods to countries such as Japan.  

However much of how the TPP will impact the U.S. is unknown as this agreement has been kept away from the public eye, and even from our own members of congress. Meanwhile over 600 individuals — including industry lobbyists, corporate leaders, and government trade representatives have negotiated the TPP behind closed doors.

This becomes a problem as corporate lobbyists have access to the details, and have influence over the negotiation process, many members of Congress have been kept in the dark about even the basic details of this agreement. For several years they were not allowed access to any of the details of the agreement.

Only recently have members been granted limited access. To do so they must make a special appointment where they were only allowed to read sections of the agreement they specifically asked for; they were not allowed to take notes or discuss any of the details with anyone, not even their staff.

One member who has seen the text, Allen Grayson said about it "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told the Huffington Post. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"

Why is the TPP being kept such a secret? Only 5 of the 29 sections of the agreement deal with trade. Among the few details that have been leaked include vast changes to intellectual property, pharmaceutical laws, and internet neutrality. Two sections of the agreement have been leaked by Wikileaks, one dealing with intellectual property, and on the environment.

What has had some people up at arms is the intellectual property section, as some view this as a way to get SOPA into U.S. law. It does specifically grant the authority for governments to enforce Intellectual Property laws on internet service providers.

Additionally it would extend many of the copyright lengths including on pharmaceuticals. This is seen as a disadvantage to most people in the U.S. as it would extend the length of time before new medicines would be available in generic form, and could increase medical costs as well. 

While the environmental chapter would have no significant impact on current U.S. law, the fear is that there is no provisions to ensure that other countries are living up to the standard, some have even called it a "toothless PR exercise."

Included in the agreement are provisions designed to allow corporations to sue governments in international court, with no appeal process. This is a clear usurpation of constitutional authority.

It is believed by some that the current form of fast track  is unconstitutional, because it does not grant full ability for members of Congress the ability to have oversight over the negotiations. For those who are not familiar the constitution says this about treaties, congressional and executive authority etc. I will outline the following for you:

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to set the terms of trade and specifies that all treaties must be with the advice and consent of the Senate. Meanwhile, the executive branch has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign sovereigns on behalf of our nation.  The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating with foreign nations and imposing trade policies that Congress would deem to be against the best interests of our nation.

Additionally Article VI Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What this clearly states is that any treaty that would be signed, would therefore become the law of the land, binding on the U.S. additionally, while it puts the role of negotiator in the hands of the Executive, it must be under the direction of Congress. Additionally giving that much authority to unelected bureaucrats is dangerous, no matter who is in power.

Much more will be coming on fast track and the TPP, and it is vital that we are aware of it. Fast track as written should be significantly amended or replaced, with stronger protections put in place to ensure that the U.S. economy gains from this agreement, and is not damaged further by this trade agreement.