Posted: May 28th, 2012 - 9:59am
Source: Denver Post

Mel Knight, Registered Environmental Health Specialist and president of the National Environmental Health Association, a Denver-based organization., writes in this on-line op-ed that modern environmental health and protection laws are required to be based on sound science. Food codes must demonstrate evidence of their ability to be protective of the public's health and the environment. Besides laws and codes, self-regulation is also an essential component to public protection, but is generally driven by liability avoidance. In the case of the Colorado listeria outbreak, a contracted third-party auditor gave the produce shipper a positive 96 percent score just before contaminated melons were shipped. With a concern for conflict of interest, truly neutral audits by parties with the authority to require corrective actions are also required, and these functions are best fulfilled by governmental agencies.
The regulatory process obviously imposes costs on the food industry. These costs for the food industry may be in the form of fees or fines, as well as the costs associated with meeting requirements such as training or equipment. In California, environmental health programs frequently recover their program costs by way of permit fees paid by the food operator rather than taxation of the general public. While these fees can be substantial sums, they are a miniscule portion of the cost of running a retail food establishment. The cost of a fully implemented retail food safety regulatory program adds, on average, only a fraction of one cent per consumer meal. A transition from taxation to fee support appears to be a logical direction for the future funding of food safety programs.
While no one enjoys extra costs and scrutiny, it has been my experience that most responsible businesses accept the need for regulatory programs. In California, the Buca di Beppo restaurant chain prominently displays a neon sign that proclaims, "INSPECTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT." Many businesses want customers assured that they are operating in compliance with good practices.
Environmental health and protection continues to be valued by the general public. Nationwide surveys by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies confirm high levels of public concern for food security and near universal support for strong food safety regulation. The President's 2013 budget is seeking a 17 percent increase for FDA's FY 2013 budget. This increase would come mainly from increased industry fees, which is a practical model for sustaining food safety programs. However, it is anticipated that the fee proposal will face congressional opposition.
The continuing poor economy has understandably raised concerns about costs, but Georgetown University's Produce Safety Project reports that foodborne illness has a public cost in the U.S. of $152 billion each year. Less than a penny per meal for food safety would seem to produce an excellent return on investment. Can we really afford to not invest in food safety programs when the upfront cost is less than the price foodborne illness is costing the American public? Urge your elected officials to support food safety initiatives and funding.