Prompted by the nation's latest food-borne epidemic, federal investigators recently returned to a Georgia peanut plant after a long absence - too long, apparently. They found mold, dead roaches, and four flavors of salmonella. Former employees have recounted some of the plant's other disturbing features, including a thriving rat population.
And yet, instead of shutting down this Upton Sinclairian horror show, the U.S. government had been patronizing it. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture were among the customers of Peanut Corp. of America - distributing its products to schoolchildren and disaster victims. Until recently, USDA had the company's president advising it on standards for peanut products.
It says much about the depth of our food-safety crisis that, before the feds could get around to any other sanctions against Peanut Corp., they had to stop doing business with it.
President Obama this week promised a complete review of the Food and Drug Administration - the only federal agency that should have had
more
dealings with Peanut Corp. As a candidate, Obama vowed that food oversight on his watch would not be "business as usual."
Let's hope not. The latest salmonellosis outbreak adds peanuts to a lengthening list of tainted food that also includes tomatoes and spinach. The peanut plant recall is now among the nation's largest. It has killed eight and sickened nearly 600 Americans in 40 states, including 15 in Pennsylvania and 23 in New Jersey. There have been a record number of recalled products (1,313).
Like the recent produce scares, this one seemed to blindside the FDA, highlighting its slow response and inadequate policing of the national and global food industry.
The FDA is in need of a major overhaul. It reportedly did not even know the Georgia plant was making peanut butter. Meanwhile, Georgia officials apparently did know of poor sanitation there. And the company's own tests had repeatedly discovered salmonella, which indicates the presence of human or animal feces. But the FDA wasn't apprised of any of this, nor did the law require as much.
The fix we're in is the result of many years of indifference and even hostility to the whole idea of government food oversight. Amid last year's tomato and jalapeno scare - back when federal resources weren't yet being strained by a severe economic downturn - Congress had to virtually shame the Bush administration into accepting more money for the FDA. But funding isn't the FDA's only problem.
The agency, which also oversees drug makers, has been criticized for its coziness with big business. When it comes to food safety, consumers appear to be the main testers of our food supply. The focus should be on preventing dangerous food and drugs from being sold in the first place, not tracking it down after people get sick or die.
The nation's food-safety system needs more legal authority and more resources to enforce it. As in other industries that have shown they require extensive regulation and oversight, the companies should pay for it. Cheap food has many benefits. But cutting production and regulation costs stops being worthwhile when it starts killing people.