D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
July 2011
Reality Check
Would You Like Salmonella With That? Steve Pearce votes to slash food-safety funding. Is our food supply really "99.99% safe"?
by David A. Fryxell
Second District voters unhappy with Rep. Steve Pearce's voting record may now be able to say he makes them sick — literally. Last month, Pearce joined all but 19 GOP colleagues (and no Democrats) in voting to slash millions of dollars from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) budget. The White House had asked for $955 million to bolster the agency's food-safety program in the next fiscal year. Pearce voted to cut that back to $750 million — $87 million less than the FDA currently spends on food safety. The agriculture appropriations bill that Pearce voted to pass also cuts $35 million from the USDA's food safety and inspection service, which monitors the nation's meat supply.
But not to worry! Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who chairs the House subcommittee that drafted the appropriations measure, says the nation's food supply is "99.99% safe."
Even if that were true, of course, it would mean that 1 in every 10,000 burgers you consume or sprouts (like those that sickened and killed people in Europe's recent E. coli outbreak) you eat might make you ill. The reality is that about 76 million people get sick from foodborne illnesses in the US each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 5,000 die. If you want to do the math for Rep. Kingston and Rep. Pearce, assuming three meals a day for 300 million Americans, give or take, that means the nation's food supply is actually about 91.5% safe.
The Tumbleweeds Top 10
Who and what's been making news from New Mexico this past month, as measured by mentions in Google News (news.google.com), which tracks 4,500 worldwide news sources (trends noted are vs. last month's total hits; * indicates new to the list). Number in parenthesis indicates last month's Top 10 rank. Two unhappy new topics claim the top spots by a wide margin; let's hope next month we're led by "New Mexico monsoon" (90 hits) instead. Meanwhile, none of the Senate candidates to replace Tom Udall can get traction in the headlines. Maybe if they did a rain dance?
|
The true cost of foodborne illness, of course, goes beyond upset tummies and even hospitalizations. A recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Georgetown University pegged the annual cost of foodborne illness in the United States at $152 billion. Unlike earlier estimates, that figure includes medical costs, lost productivity and quality of life.
Since the cattle industry alone is worth more than $1 billion annually to the New Mexico economy, we'd think Steve Pearce might be more concerned about meat inspection. Look at what happened to the pork industry after the "swine flu" scare — which actually had nothing to do with eating pork. (We've still got some of those "buy 1 get 2 free" pork ribs in the freezer.)
Or consider New Mexico's $133 million pecan industry. Surely there's some economic benefit in making sure pecans are safe? Or maybe Pearce has already forgotten the 46-state salmonella outbreak in 2009 that was traced to a peanut-processing plant in Georgia. Besides sparking the largest food-product recall in US history, the salmonella contamination was linked to more than 700 illnesses and 9 deaths.
Concern over that and similar outbreaks led Congress to pass the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's food-safety laws in half a century. An unusual coalition of 10 food-industry trade groups, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Frozen Foods Institute, joined in calling for Congressional action, citing costs such as the $70 million lost by Kellogg Co. in the peanut recall. Under the legislation, the FDA, which oversees the safety of produce and packaged foods, was empowered to order product recalls and probe company records.
Such enforcement isn't free, however — hence the push to boost the agency's budget. But unless the Senate restores food-safety funding, the FDA will be going in reverse.
Let's hope Rep. Pearce likes his burgers well-done. And, just to be on the safe side, he might want to skip the lettuce and tomato. Fortunately, he doesn't strike us as much of a sprouts guy, anyway.
Brave New Food
We visit SB's Late-Night Lunchbox, a new eatery
serving Las Crucens who don't go to bed early.
by Jeff Berg
Las Cruces isn't exactly a place that is well known for its culinary delights. We occasionally go to Trip Advisor, an online rating service for travelers, to see what they have to say about various Las Cruces beaneries. Under restaurants for Las Cruces, 179 places are currently noted, although about a third of those don't have reviews or don't exist any longer. Some we've never even heard of.
 |
SB’sLate-Night Lunchbox (Photos by Bob Peticolas) |
Amazingly, or maybe not, a Mexican place, El Comedor, was listed as the "best" of Las Cruces a couple of weeks ago. With three reviews this year (22 total), it was certainly not cited as being something to make a special trip to for lunch, but it was given pretty good notes all in all. At the bottom of the review list was the local version of Hooter's, which was recently jabbed by the health department for a number of sanitary issues (since resolved).
Missing, however, are any Trip Advisor mentions of Las Cruces' only real late night, non-corporate café, SB's Late-Night Lunchbox.
Trip Advisor needs some advising, we believe.