You'd think the USDA would see the flaw of logic in letting the people who make the food inspect the food and decide if it is actually safe to eat.
The USDA has decided in its infinite wisdom, despite pink slime and a few other debacles of the food industry, to test a program allowing chicken companies to check their own livestock and decide whether or not the chickens are safe to eat.
The USDA claims this will save them tens of millions of dollars.
Well, USDA, I can save you even more. If you're going to let the chicken companies inspect their own chickens, just trash the whole program, because I guarantee you they will decide "ALL of our chickens are safe!"
At some point, you would hope someone at the USDA (and I looked it up, there are over 100,000 employees there) would have raised their hand and pointed out the glaringly obvious: "Uh, since these guys are selling us chicken/beef/fish/whatever, don't you think they are going to say that everything they're selling is safe?"
Ideally, another person (we're up to 2 out of 100,000 - a push perhaps, but I woke up optimistic this morning) would have seconded the first person's statement and then, just maybe, we could have our food actually inspected before we eat it.
Which, I will point out to the USDA and its 100,000 employees, is generally considered to be their core job.
And it gets worse.
Right now, the USDA inspectors (who are independent, don't work for the chicken companies, and aren't driven by chicken company profits for holiday bonuses) inspect 35 chickens a minute for lovely things like bile, feces and random spare parts that got through processing.
That's a chicken every two seconds.
Should you so desire, take two seconds to inspect the next chicken you see at the store. It's really not a lot of time, but with some practice you could get pretty good at it - which is a nice thought because you are essentially performing the task that stands between me eating a relatively clean chicken or a feces- and bile-covered chicken. (There is a difference, Mr. USDA, trust me on this one.)
Well, under this new program, the chicken companies will rubber stamp - er, I mean inspect 175 chickens a minute. 175! That's just under three chickens a second.
Are you thinking, "Wait a minute, 175 chickens a minute? That's impossible!" Well congratulations - you are now ahead of 100,000 USDA employees in the class on food safety.
I have a little test for you and the USDA: if you can even count to 175 in sixty seconds, I might reconsider my opposition.
If you can't, you need to sign this petition, share it with the world, put it up on Facebook.
Even better, if you know anyone at the USDA, send it to them and ask them to see what they can do for you, for me, and for everyone who prefers their chickens to be properly inspected, let alone inspected at all.
This post originally appeared at HandPicked Nation.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Salon.com
Comments
What many liberals will never understand is that in addition to being inept, most Government safety agencies are completely unnecessary. You see, thanks to our legal system, chicken companies have every reason to take inspections seriously, because if something should happen, they will be sued. If anything, the fact food is given a seal of approval from an inept agency like the USDA gives consumers the false sense of security. I say eliminate the USDA and spend the savings on education and the environment.
"Well Jim, I can spot that Histoplasma capsulatum in 3 seconds"
"Jim, I can do it in two !!"
The chronic health problems you can develop from eating contaminated food can last a lifetime and usually kill you in the end. I speak from personal experience, after suddenly developing Crohn's Disease in my mid-40s in 1993.
Good question but let’s get one thing straight first; the self-correcting industry philosophy I support is the solution the Government chose. Now back to your question, tort reform would make chicken more affordable because companies would no longer have to buy insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t care about the quality of their products. To the extent there was a problem, the market will punish them with reduced sales. In other words, tort reform or not, there is no need for the USDA to inspect anything.
Bramhall:
People aren’t dying in large numbers from eating contaminated food. There is no evidence that organic food is less likely to be contaminated. Not very many people have Crohn’s disease, nor has it been definitively linked to dairy products. I’m glad you enjoy being a vegetarian but for that load of crap, I’m definitely eating veal tonight.
Clearly, a half million qualifies dr. fever to make his pronouncement.
May he lead a long life eating beak less Kentucky Fried Chicken and force-fed veal; and may he find some other forum to express his delusions and sociopathy.
http://www.crohnsawareness.com/faq.html
A) A multi-national conglomerate with billions in holdings
B) A chicken peddler at an open-aired market
If you answered A, you’re right! Sure the corporations can hire the best attorneys and will attempt to flex their muscle, but at the end of the day, the main reason they’re in front of the court is because of their size. Furthermore, I reject the concept they receive favorable treatment from the courts. If corporations have so much power, why do so many choose to settle lawsuits outside of the courtroom?
“Do you guys ever think about the long-term consequences of these things?”
Yes and 2+2=4
“But Johnny, tort reform would greatly lessen the ability to take companies to court in the first place.”
That would be good because the cost of liability insurance is passed on to consumers. Or do you like spending more money on chickens for the benefit of ambulance chasing lawyers and their sue-happy clients?
“And damage caps will mean that companies have even less of a financial incentive to do the right thing.”
Companies have plenty of financial incentive to do the right thing with or without tort reform. See comment dated April 11, 9:36pm.
MarkinJapan:
Although not as crazy as you, Frank is a liberal not a troll. I think it’s time the craziest person on Open Salon give up their vendetta against Frank and direct it towards me. Much appreciated.
At any rate, you're clearly delusional. See, the point of punitive damages is to punish wrongdoing. You eliminate the punishment, and you remove any incentive to care about doing the right thing. Isn't that how you always insist that the "market" works? And yet you refuse to believe it will happen in this case.
.16% is the correct answer, it also happens to be a very small number. Oh by the way, Frank’s bio states “I consider American conservatism to be one of the most dangerous pieces of garbage ever to pollute the planet Earth”. Now back to the more intelligent conversation.
Jeanette:
We should probably shelve the debate of how to punish wrongdoing until after tort reform is achieved. But assuming tort reform is achieved, as stated before, companies have plenty of incentives to avoid wrongdoing. Assume salmonella is discovered and all the chickens from a particular company are deemed bad and removed from store shelves. That would be a very expensive problem. In addition, consumers would likely avoid buying from that company even after the issue was adequately resolved. But as stated before, the USDA is well aware of these costs, hence their decision to let the chicken companies inspect their own products.
What do you have against education and the environment?