Accidental Hedonist - FDA in perspective follow up

FDA in perspective follow up

09/26/06 @ 05:32:05 am, by Kate Hopkins

668 views • Categories: Food Politics

Here are the answers to this post.

The Transportation Security Administration - 6.223 billion dollar budget
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - 3.681 billion dollar budget
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute - 2.901 billion dollar budget
Emergency Spending for AIDS relief - 2.894 billion dollar budget
Military Spending for Israel - 2.34 billion dollar budget
The cost of one Virginia Class Submarine - 1.775 billion dollar budget
Food and Drug Administration - 1.545 billion dollar budget
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance - 1.540 billion dollar budget

That's right. We live in a world where one submarine costs more than the entire budget of the agency that provides oversight to the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Technorati Tags: Food Politics

Permalink • 5 comments

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Ryan [Visitor]

So, if we didn't spend money on the submarine our food would be safer?

Or, less spending on AIDS equates to higher food quality?

Does any of this make sense?

Okay, your retort would be that the underlying theme is we don't spend enough on food safety.

If that's the case, I say 'fine, why not just say that, and then back it up with some evidence?'

But, you never explore whether more spending by the FDA equates to better food quality.

And, when tallying up how much 'we' spend you leave out quite a bit.

For starters, all the state and local agencies. While state and local governments don't build their own submarines, they do contribute to food safety. Also excluded:

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

Department of Agriculture

Cooperative State Research

EPA

NOAA (who's budget you include, but don't point out their Seafood Inspection Program).

Don't get me wrong, you very well may have an important point to make.

I just think you're going about it in a wrong, and ineffectual way.

But, mileage will vary - of course.

Overall, love the work you do.

Best,
Ryan

Permalink 09/26/06 @ 06:35

Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member]

· http://www.accidentalhedonist.com

Ryan,

This list wasn't to point out which department is more deserving, but rather to point out the priorities of the federal government, where food safety lies juuuust above Embassy maintenance.

This priority (or lack there of) has clearly been demonstrated with the E. Coli issue. The FDA has little resources to implement proper regulations that could have prevented this outbreak.

Permalink 09/26/06 @ 06:41

Comment from: Ryan [Visitor]

But it was meant to point out which was more deserving.

Why else post the list?

You point to Embassy maintenance. That's a cost fully borne only by the Feds.

Our food safety costs are borne by many, many agencies at the Federal, State, and Local levels.

You're just gerrymandering the spending to fit your argument.

Your argument may be valid. But, as of yet, you offer no proof that it is. Just emotional appeal.

What should the budget of the FDA be?

Permalink 09/26/06 @ 06:55

Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member]

· http://www.accidentalhedonist.com

"Our food safety costs are borne by many, many agencies at the Federal, State, and Local levels."

Two points - First, State agencies authority ends at their respective borders. If Oregon discovers E.Coli in their food supply, and then find out that it originated in California, they have to report their discovery to the FDA and the CDC. In other words, the FDA provides oversight on national matters. The USDA provides some, mostly in dairy and meat, but everything else falls under the FDA.

Now, if the FDA is responsible for oversight of national food distribution, shouldn't they be providing more than suggestions when it comes to food safety? If a processing plant has been found to be out of compliance of basic safety practices, shouldn't the FDA have the resources to apply the weight of law against these companies?

Second point, The National Uniformity for Food Act, which the current administration supports, is designed to weaken the already minimal power that some states currently have. In fact, if the act were implemented, the FDA will have additional responsibility to ensure food safety.

Permalink 09/26/06 @ 07:01

Comment from: ben [Visitor] · http://bengarland.com

Military spending for Israel?

Uh, why are we giving money to Israel? I think they have quite enough on their own.

Permalink 09/26/06 @ 07:32

Users

Poll

Archives

FDA in perspective follow up

Comments, Pingbacks:

Leave a comment:

AH Food Journals

AH Guest Writers

AH Alumni

Blogroll