What The Food Safety Modernization Act Means

• Share This Post
• Pin It
• 0
• 0
• Sparkle (
  0
  )
   

Previously thought to be dead in the water due to a technical snag, S. 510 -- also known as the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -- was unexpectedly revived and passed unanimously in the Senate Monday. It's slated for a House vote next, where it's expected to pass, and will then head to President Obama's desk, where he's already promised he would sign it into law.

Unfortunately, even with its future essentially sealed, the true focus and reach of the bill remains thickly swathed in myth and misunderstanding. Since its introduction, alarmist messages have mounted against the bill and its supporters -- an admittedly large and ominous group. Claims have ranged from the bill being likely to raise food prices and hurt family budgets to it being written entirely as a conspiracy to put small farmers out of business lest they threaten the profits of food and agriculture giants too much. And some far reaching rumors have gone so far as to purport the idea that even personal, backyard gardens will soon be illegal and strictly cracked down on. The theories -- conspiracy and otherwise -- have been so varied and complex, they're enough to make even the most educated and scrutinizing citizen's head spin.

On that note, I have both good news and bad.

The good news is, your backyard garden is safe. That, I can say for sure. The bad news is, there's not much else that can be said for sure at this point. The legislation's entire effect on American families, their farmers and their food supply is yet to be seen and will remain unclear for some time. In some ways this is due to vague wording within the bill itself, but in others it's just the nature of new legislation.

Here's what we can decipher from the bill that is at least mostly for sure:

• Threats to the Food Supply Should be Intercepted Earlier and More Frequently Than Before -- One thing the legislation does spell out for sure is that inspections of food facilities both domestic and abroad will be conducted with greater frequency beginning as soon as the first year after the bill is signed into law. Initial inspections are done at no cost for facilities, so costs will not increase for those operating in compliance with requirements, and the increased number of inspections should serve to detect and deal with threats to the food supply more efficiently than in the past.
• Individual Consumers' Personal Information Will Not be Compromised. -- While the legislation does include a requirement for facilities to both maintain and, in the event of an outbreak or potential outbreak, make available to the Secretary of the FDA the records pertaining to those individuals who may have received or will be receiving their products, the requirement is limited to non-consumer entities. In other words, food sold directly to the consumer doesn't have to be tracked, and even if it is, those records do not have to be surrendered to the Secretary if the facility's records are summoned. If you purchase goods directly from a farmer, at a farmer's market or farm stand, your information remains as confidential as it always has -- even if that farm is suspected as a source of a food borne illness outbreak.
• Requirements Spelled Out in the Legislation are Unlikely to Significantly Affect Food Prices -- While there has been much speculation about the costly toll increased record keeping and safety analysis maintenance could have on small business and farms, most facilities are likely already keeping the records required in the legislation. And even those facilities without an analysis of how food may be compromised during the course of their handling on paper now have probably taken unwritten stock of the risks associated with their facility and will have relatively little time and resources invested in putting it on paper. In fact, the legislation is specifically written to discourage the unnecessary investment of capital in such an analysis.
• Food Recalls Should be Enacted More Quickly and Efficiently Than Before -- The legislation extends unprecedented power to the Secretary of the FDA and anytime both "power" and "unprecedented" are used in one sentence with regard to a government entity citizens can get more than a little nerve-wracked. In this case however,