Food Safety Oversight
Words, words - and supposedly good intentions. Which, unfortunately, don't quite stand up to closer inspection. And it's closer inspection that's the source of this particular problem. But then, that's politics; whatever it is that is promised generally requires closer inspection before the intention is fully understood and clarified.
This current government in Canada has undertaken a good many new initiatives, and many of them have been long overdue and in their enacting have resounded well for the country. A lot of them have to do with demographic interactions, unfortunate past histories, and government recognition - and many evolve around Canada's role on the international stage.
Then there are those items meant for internal consumption, mostly the basic nuts and bolts of government responsibility toward ensuring a safe and secure environment for Canadians. The government has undertaken, among other things, new research into problematic chemicals, and has become moderately active in assuring Canadians those that which pose a threat to the health and safety of the population will be removed from active use; others carefully monitored.
The government has also trumpeted its initiatives with respect to food labelling and source-identification to ensure that the consuming public knows exactly where the food it uses emanates from. Other little food labelling tweaks, identifying ingredients and additives in the order of prominence will help. All for the purpose of making certain that Canadians have more confidence in their food sources and ensuring that the population will have confidence in their government.
So what a disappointment, to read that there are plans afoot for government to opt out of active surveillance of safety with relation to the food we eat. Food inspection is a vital part of ensuring that what we consume is safe and reliable. Now government is in the process of finalizing plans to gift food industry itself with that very important process of self-validation. Is it too provocative to ask what's in it for the food industry other than more freedom to do as they will?
The plan was put forward at the behest of the minister of agriculture and has advanced to the stage where Treasury Board has approved it. It means change of a magnitude and possible potential that will disappoint the confidence of the Canadian consumer. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is set to stop funding to producers for the testing of cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
This deliberately balances Canadian consumers' confidence in their government agencies whose major thrust up until now has been to ensure food safety against an unknown agenda. For a saving of some $24-million over the next three years. With an unforeseen and undetected outbreak of BSE in Canadian cattle gone to market, the cost in lost exports, the cost associated with cleaning up affected herds, and the cost related to consumer confidence and resulting illness-related health care would far outweigh that saving.
Government has advised the CFIA that it is expected to trim its budget by 5%. Why, for heaven's sake, when the federal government continues to post huge year-end surpluses and we have a robust economy, with high employment and a thriving export business? Canada's economic performance is the envy of the G-8. Changes to the process of meat inspection and meat products will give Agency representatives an "oversight" role, emasculating its purpose.
Which means industry itself is expected to implement food safety control programs, and to manage "key risks" to production, distribution and public safety. What's truly alarming is that the inspection of animal feed mills will also be affected, and it isn't hard to recall that the common practise of feeding of animal entrails and other non-human-edible offal from one animal to another has been definitively implicated in BSE occurrences.
They're throwing consumer confidence in the food we eat on the mercy of feed mills, animal producers, agri-business, whose interest is in their bottom line, and who will take whatever short-cuts it takes to enhance that bottom line. "They're moving towards the U.S. model, where the inspectors don't actually do the inspection, they just oversee and the companies actually do the inspection.
"That's a really dangerous thing," according to a North American authority on BSE, and senior scientist with the New York-based Consumers Union which publishes Consumer Reports. This same authority, Michael Hansen, has testified in the past by invitation, before parliamentary committees, as an expert on food safety issues. He tells us that ending the BSE reimbursement program should be of "highest concern".
Well, we're concerned. A Canadian academic who specializes in food risk management feels the cuts are "unfathomable", and for a very good reason, since Canada is continuing to discover incidences of BSE-positive animals - and what's truly alarming - represents one of the few countries in the world where BSE is said to be on the increase. He points out, frighteningly, that "the greatest risks" of emerging infectious diseases are specifically related to animal products and food.
"Reducing food safety controls at this time could be disastrous if there is an outbreak of a new food-borne disease. No wonder they suspect they may have some "communication risks" around these initiatives. They have a huge communication risk". In reference to the pussy-footing about that the government is now engaged in, attempting to assess public relations and the potential for a hard back-lash, before fully revealing this new agenda.
And according to University of Guelph professor Ann Clark, who is a specialist in risk assessment in genetically modified crops, herself having testified before Parliament's agriculture committee with relation to risk management and the country's food supply: "The proposals are illogical.
"Companies are in business to make profit, pure and simple. And we, as a society, have fully accepted and bought into that, but with the understanding that somebody will be riding herd on them - minding the shop - safeguard societal interests. Otherwise, history has shown that we are at risk.
"The initiatives outlined in this document suggest government is trying to get out of the business of government, by downloading responsibility for safeguarding human and environmental health to the same industry interests which stand to make money from what is being regulated. This is inherently illogical."
What's amazing is the manner in which a trusting public drew a collective sigh of relief, in the belief that government actually intended to tighten up regulations and food safety inspections. We interpreted government concern on our behalf to have been articulated to assure us, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Health Minister Tony Clement announced a new food and consumer action plan.
The purpose of which, we were solemnly informed, was to make Canadians' food supply safer through "tougher" regulations of food and other consumer products. We've got to let those brilliant minds in on a little secret, it's not going to work, and it isn't in the best interests of the Canadian public, although food production companies may just love it.
Back to the drawing board. And this time, try a little harder.
This current government in Canada has undertaken a good many new initiatives, and many of them have been long overdue and in their enacting have resounded well for the country. A lot of them have to do with demographic interactions, unfortunate past histories, and government recognition - and many evolve around Canada's role on the international stage.
Then there are those items meant for internal consumption, mostly the basic nuts and bolts of government responsibility toward ensuring a safe and secure environment for Canadians. The government has undertaken, among other things, new research into problematic chemicals, and has become moderately active in assuring Canadians those that which pose a threat to the health and safety of the population will be removed from active use; others carefully monitored.
The government has also trumpeted its initiatives with respect to food labelling and source-identification to ensure that the consuming public knows exactly where the food it uses emanates from. Other little food labelling tweaks, identifying ingredients and additives in the order of prominence will help. All for the purpose of making certain that Canadians have more confidence in their food sources and ensuring that the population will have confidence in their government.
So what a disappointment, to read that there are plans afoot for government to opt out of active surveillance of safety with relation to the food we eat. Food inspection is a vital part of ensuring that what we consume is safe and reliable. Now government is in the process of finalizing plans to gift food industry itself with that very important process of self-validation. Is it too provocative to ask what's in it for the food industry other than more freedom to do as they will?
The plan was put forward at the behest of the minister of agriculture and has advanced to the stage where Treasury Board has approved it. It means change of a magnitude and possible potential that will disappoint the confidence of the Canadian consumer. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is set to stop funding to producers for the testing of cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
This deliberately balances Canadian consumers' confidence in their government agencies whose major thrust up until now has been to ensure food safety against an unknown agenda. For a saving of some $24-million over the next three years. With an unforeseen and undetected outbreak of BSE in Canadian cattle gone to market, the cost in lost exports, the cost associated with cleaning up affected herds, and the cost related to consumer confidence and resulting illness-related health care would far outweigh that saving.
Government has advised the CFIA that it is expected to trim its budget by 5%. Why, for heaven's sake, when the federal government continues to post huge year-end surpluses and we have a robust economy, with high employment and a thriving export business? Canada's economic performance is the envy of the G-8. Changes to the process of meat inspection and meat products will give Agency representatives an "oversight" role, emasculating its purpose.
Which means industry itself is expected to implement food safety control programs, and to manage "key risks" to production, distribution and public safety. What's truly alarming is that the inspection of animal feed mills will also be affected, and it isn't hard to recall that the common practise of feeding of animal entrails and other non-human-edible offal from one animal to another has been definitively implicated in BSE occurrences.
They're throwing consumer confidence in the food we eat on the mercy of feed mills, animal producers, agri-business, whose interest is in their bottom line, and who will take whatever short-cuts it takes to enhance that bottom line. "They're moving towards the U.S. model, where the inspectors don't actually do the inspection, they just oversee and the companies actually do the inspection.
"That's a really dangerous thing," according to a North American authority on BSE, and senior scientist with the New York-based Consumers Union which publishes Consumer Reports. This same authority, Michael Hansen, has testified in the past by invitation, before parliamentary committees, as an expert on food safety issues. He tells us that ending the BSE reimbursement program should be of "highest concern".
Well, we're concerned. A Canadian academic who specializes in food risk management feels the cuts are "unfathomable", and for a very good reason, since Canada is continuing to discover incidences of BSE-positive animals - and what's truly alarming - represents one of the few countries in the world where BSE is said to be on the increase. He points out, frighteningly, that "the greatest risks" of emerging infectious diseases are specifically related to animal products and food.
"Reducing food safety controls at this time could be disastrous if there is an outbreak of a new food-borne disease. No wonder they suspect they may have some "communication risks" around these initiatives. They have a huge communication risk". In reference to the pussy-footing about that the government is now engaged in, attempting to assess public relations and the potential for a hard back-lash, before fully revealing this new agenda.
And according to University of Guelph professor Ann Clark, who is a specialist in risk assessment in genetically modified crops, herself having testified before Parliament's agriculture committee with relation to risk management and the country's food supply: "The proposals are illogical.
"Companies are in business to make profit, pure and simple. And we, as a society, have fully accepted and bought into that, but with the understanding that somebody will be riding herd on them - minding the shop - safeguard societal interests. Otherwise, history has shown that we are at risk.
"The initiatives outlined in this document suggest government is trying to get out of the business of government, by downloading responsibility for safeguarding human and environmental health to the same industry interests which stand to make money from what is being regulated. This is inherently illogical."
What's amazing is the manner in which a trusting public drew a collective sigh of relief, in the belief that government actually intended to tighten up regulations and food safety inspections. We interpreted government concern on our behalf to have been articulated to assure us, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Health Minister Tony Clement announced a new food and consumer action plan.
The purpose of which, we were solemnly informed, was to make Canadians' food supply safer through "tougher" regulations of food and other consumer products. We've got to let those brilliant minds in on a little secret, it's not going to work, and it isn't in the best interests of the Canadian public, although food production companies may just love it.
Back to the drawing board. And this time, try a little harder.
posted by Pieface @ 5:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home