DOCSLIB.ORG

Read Article

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read Article ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ Ϯ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 The Dangers 4 The $77 Billion Problem 6 The Promise of Safety 8 Toothless Oversight 10 The Importance of the Civil Justice System 15 Ten Worst Outbreaks 17 Food Safety — What We Can Do 24 Appendix — Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli 27 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ INTRODUCTION very year, 48 million people fall sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and at least 3,000 die from foodborne illnesses, costing the nation approximately E $77 billion. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, as for each reported case many more go unreported. As frightening as such statistics sound, the situation threatens to get worse as giant food companies are increasingly instituting industrialized farming strategies that render our food supply heavily susceptible to contamination. Factory farms’ intensive use of pharmaceuticals in livestock is associated with the rise of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” and the vast amounts of waste produced contaminates groundwater and nearby crops to the extent that leafy green vegetables like spinach and lettuce are now the second-most frequent cause of food-related hospitalizations and the "fth- most frequent cause of food contamination death. Even when consumers are made sick by food, the vast majority of cases are never speci"cally identi"ed—81 percent of foodborne illnesses remain the product of unknown agents. #us there are no consistent market repercussions for food companies that allow their products to become contaminated, and no economic motivators to keep the promise of safe food. #is “ine%cient market” places the burden of keeping the food supply safe with regulators. Yet state and federal regulators have found themselves both overwhelmed and toothless in the face of industry power. When food companies put pro"ts before safety, and the regulatory system proves unable to force change, it has fallen to the civil justice system to protect consumers. Lawsuits have proven to be the most e&ective, and sometimes the only, mechanism for deterring negligent behavior and rooting out systemic problems in the food chain. ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ ¡ THE DANGERS ood both sustains and excites adding one more thing to worry us. It provides us with the about, particularly something as 48 Ffundamental nourishment unappetizing as contamination, is necessary for life but also thrills us with too unappealing to consider. Every million moments of great joy. But food can now and again we may hear a horror people fall sick also make us sick, and even kill us. A story that we can’t ignore—listeria- typical meal features ingredients from ridden ice cream, salmonella-tainted every year from peanuts, spinach with E. coli—and a dozen di&erent sources, and we place then, after that story is forgotten, we eating food our trust in each one with every bite allow our concerns to fade into the we take. For millions of consumers, contaminated background. that trust is violated by negligent food with salmonella, providers every year, and for thousands #e reality is that every year, 48 E. coli, and other the consequences are fatal. million people fall sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and at least 3,000 die contaminants Most of us know at some level that from eating contaminated food. 1 food can be dangerous, but more And such statistics represent only the often than not, we try to avoid tip of the iceberg. For each reported thinking about the safety of our case many more go unreported. 128,000 food. All of us have heard horror Salmonella, for instance, sickens 1 are hospitalized stories about contamination by million people, hospitalizes 19,000, alien-sounding bacteria, but we and kills nearly 400 every year, yet tend to believe the food products for every diagnosed case 29 more we choose are safe, until we hear go undiagnosed. #e vast majority 3,000 otherwise. We’re already inundated of what we know colloquially as with advice about diet, about foods “stomach (u” are actually cases of die to avoid, about eating organic and foodborne illness.2 eating local, and the thought of ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ ϱ In other words, foodborne illnesses outbreaks, the landscape of food are both very common, and very safety in the United States is in misunderstood. And despite the danger of becoming far worse. attention brought by high-pro"le Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Estimates of Annual Foodborne Illness in the United States ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ ¢ THE $77 BILLION PROBLEM any of the risks associated the vast amounts of waste produced with food safety originate contaminates groundwater and nearby Mwith the industrialization of farming, the methods of which build-in tremendous risk to food safety. Factory Foodborne farms seek to maximize production illnesses cost the in limited physical space in order to cut costs. #e irony is that foodborne United States illnesses cost the nation approximately $77 billion each year, meaning that the $77 billion food poisoning we su&er is our receipt per year for the costs we have subsidized. 3 crops—an impact that can be seen in Unlike traditional animal farms, the fact that leafy green vegetables like the industrialized farms, or CAFOs spinach and lettuce are now the second- (Concentrated Animal Feeding most frequent cause of hospitalizations Operations), are almost by default and the "fth-most frequent cause of heavily susceptible to food safety food contamination death. 4 Added to problems. Factory farms produce which the immense cost-cutting power vast amounts of waste and feature of CAFOs has signi"cantly undercut heavy use of pharmaceuticals in an more sustainable farming practices that attempt to both maximize production better support local economies and and thwart the inevitable problems provide safer food. #e overcrowding of disease. #e repercussions of and unsanitary conditions that are such methods are extensive: the fundamental to industrialized farming intensive use of pharmaceuticals in signi"cantly increase the chances of livestock is associated with the rise of bacterial contamination entering the antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” and food supply. And given the size of ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ £ CAFOs, such contamination can makes an already imperfect situation have far wider consequences than intolerable are the frequent incidences contamination that may occur on of reckless negligence by food producers traditional, smaller farms. 5 But what trying to cut corners. THE FOOD GOLIATHS #e factory farms are themselves cogs in vast vertically-oriented corporate food production companies. In the case of chicken, for instance, the various stages of chicken production— breeding farms, and growout houses, etc.—are independent A Consumer Reports farmers working under contract with giant corporations, such investigation found as Tyson, Smith"eld, Cargill and Hormel. 6 #e farmers are that more than responsible for the equipment and all associated costs, while the food 65% company retains ownership of the chickens. Ninety percent of the of chicken breast nation’s chicken is produced in this contained E. coli manner. 7 #e result is not only bad for consumers—a Consumer Reports investigation found that more than 65 percent of all chicken breasts contained the fecal contaminant E. coli, 18 percent of which were the particularly worrisome ExPEC strain of E. coli, associated with urinary tract infections, and half also contained multi-drug resistant bacterium—but also for the farmers themselves. 8 Farmers who work for giant integrated food companies often live below the poverty line and are forced to compete with neighboring farms to cut costs. Farmers who speak up are given lower quality chickens or have their contracts ripped up entirely. 9 #e only “people” who gain from such factory farms are the food corporations that run them. ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƟĐĞ;:Ϳ͗ &ŽŽĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJϮϬϭϱ ¤ THE PROMISE OF SAFETY e have many choices when #e result is that the food industry it comes to food, but safety is largely immune to market forces Wis not one of them. Even when it comes to safety. #ere are no consumers who are careful to follow consistent market repercussions for food safe food practices at home can and contamination, and thus no economic do get sickened by contaminated food. motivators to keep the promise of safe Studies show that consumers would food, resulting in what economists be more than willing to pay more for describe as an “ine%cient market.” We safer food, but there is little we can do have nothing to protect us but our trust at the store to evaluate the safety of our in food manufacturers to do the right food. 10 We can’t see safe food because thing, and when that trust is violated the bacteria that cause foodborne the only true recourse is the civil justice 81% illnesses are invisible to the naked eye. system. We can comparison-shop for price, of foodborne taste, and alleged “healthiness,” but Take, for example, the 2009 peanut illnesses remain there is no way to know how safe a scandal. Executives at the Peanut product is likely to be. #us, perhaps Corporation of America (PCA) had the product of the most fundamental attribute of food known for at least three years that they unknown agents is unknown to us, and we must take the had a salmonella problem but put safety of our food on faith and accept the pro"ts ahead of safety and continued promise of food production companies. to ship their products to unsuspecting Even when consumers are made sick by customers. #e PCA products were food, the vast majority of cases are never incorporated into hundreds of products speci"cally identi"ed—81 percent of under a wide variety of labels, making foodborne illnesses remain the product the chances of foodborne illnesses being of unknown agents—and so we rarely traced back to PCA highly unlikely.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Center for Food Safety V. Hamburg Will Alter the Food Industry Joella Roland
    Journal of Business & Technology Law Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 10 The aH ng-Up with Hamburg: How Center for Food Safety v. Hamburg will Alter the Food Industry Joella Roland Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Food Processing Commons, and the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Joella Roland, The Hang-Up with Hamburg: How Center for Food Safety v. Hamburg will Alter the Food Industry, 9 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 357 (2014) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl/vol9/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Business & Technology Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RolandPP2.4EIC (Do Not Delete) 4/1/2014 6:23 PM Joella Roland* The Hang-Up with Hamburg: How Center for Food Safety v. Hamburg will Alter the Food Industry Between 2006 and 2010, six highly publicized outbreaks of food borne illnesses occurred, resulting in fourteen deaths.1 In 2008, a critically-acclaimed documentary portrayed the majority of the food industry as appallingly full of profit-hungry corporate giants willing to sacrifice the quality of their food and the health of the American people for lower costs.2 It was in this climate that, on January 4, 2011, President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) into law.3 This act dictated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implement certain food industry regulations by specific deadlines, which the FDA failed to meet.4 Frustrated by the FDA’s inability to adhere to these deadlines, the Center for Food Safety filed suit to compel the FDA to do so, resulting in Center for Food Safety v.
    [Show full text]
  • JOURNAL of Twelve Dollars Environmentaldedicated to the Advancement of the Environmental Health Professional Healthvolume 76, No
    JOURNAL OF dollars twelve EnvironmentalDedicated to the advancement of the environmental health professional HealthVolume 76, No. 10 June 2014 Published by the National Environmental Health Association www.neha.org JEH6.14_PRINT.indd 1 5/1/14 4:08 PM UL PUTS SAFETY AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN Full Service Solution Provider for the Food Service Industry For more than a century UL has employed exacting scientic processes and the highest ethical principles to deliver trusted results. Today, we continue to focus on the next generation of food safety challenges and more, helping the food service industry and stakeholders achieve safer living and work environments. Learn about our many food service and food safety resources below: FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT FOOD SAFETY & BRAND PROTECTION RETAIL FOOD SAFETY TRAINING UL.COM/APPLIANCES UL.COM/FOOD ULEDUNEERING.COM/FOODSAFETY UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2014 JEH6.14_PRINT.indd 2 5/1/14 4:08 PM JOURNAL OF EnvironmentalDedicated to the advancement of the environmental health professional HealthVolume 76, No. 10 June 2014 ABOUT THE COVER ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE Incorporating Community-Based Participatory Research Principles Our cover this Into Environmental Health Research: Challenges and Lessons Learned month emphasizes From a Housing Pilot Study ................................................................................................................8 an important point that the authors A Strategic Cleaning Assessment Program: Menu Cleanliness at Restaurants ..................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Health Playbook
    Focus Areas FOOD SAFETY Food Safety Americans spend more than $1 trillion on food each year, nearly half of it in restaurants, schools, and other establishments outside the home.1 Therefore, maintenance of a healthy and safe food pipeline is a strategic national imperative. To achieve that goal, federal agencies cooperate with state and local entities to develop systems, standards, and the workforce necessary to assure universal access to safe and nutritious food. The Problem The Government Accountability Office has identified as many as 15 federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA), tasked with administering at least 30 food safety laws. Nonetheless, foodborne illness remains a problem in the US. According to CDC, every year one in six Americans becomes ill and 30,000 Americans die from ingesting contaminated food or beverages.2 Foodborne illnesses cost the country more than $15.6 billion annually.3 While all Americans are susceptible to foodborne illness, certain populations, including children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems, are particularly vulnerable.4 Preventing foodborne illness remains one of public health’s greatest challenges. The laboratory-based network used to detect and help resolve foodborne disease outbreaks in the US is the PulseNet network established by CDC and the Association of Public Health Laboratories in 1996. According to a recent CDC report, PulseNet is not only effective, but cost-effective:5 PulseNet, the national laboratory network that detects foodborne disease outbreaks, prevents an estimated 270,000 illnesses every year from the three most common causes of foodborne illness: Salmonella, E.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking at Edible Insects from a Food Safety Perspective
    LOOKING AT EDIBLE INSECTS FROM A FOOD SAFETY PERSPECTIVE Challenges and opportunities for the sector FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME, 2021 Required citation: FAO. 2021. Looking at edible insects from a food safety perspective. Challenges and opportunities for the sector. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4094en The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-134196-4 © FAO, 2021 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services.
    [Show full text]
  • Listeria Monocytogenes in the Retail Food Service Environment
    LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN THE RETAIL FOOD SERVICE ENVIRONMENT A Paper Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By David Andrew Walpuck In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Program: Food Safety April 2018 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN THE RETAIL FOOD SERVICE ENVIRONMENT By David Andrew Walpuck The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Dr. Peter Bergholz Chair Dr. Anuradha Vegi Dr. Robert Maddock Approved: 05/31/18 Paul Schwarz Date Department Chair ABSTRACT Listeria monocytogenes is one of the biggest microbial concerns affecting today’s food industry. It is a ubiquitous liability with a high mortality rate, unique characteristics of growth and survival in many environmental conditions, making the pathogen a true risk to consumer health. Recent outbreaks of listeriosis have caused fatalities, massive well-publicized recalls costing the food industry heavy financial losses and damaged reputation. L. monocytogenes is the forefront of impediment and educational efforts from private industry and government agencies. The purpose of this study is to assess the features and concern of L. monocytogenes in the retail food service environment and its impact on operations. Regulatory surveillance of testing environmental samples and food products for L. monocytogenes highlight prevention. Organizations in the retail food service industry need a separate plan for training, food handling, sanitation and financial allocation to combat the potential threat of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 45/Thursday, March 7, 2013/Rules
    14636 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations products. However, FSIS will not make Done at Washington, DC, on: February 11, is responsible for determining the safety any changes to the performance 2013. of ingredients and sources of irradiation standards for these products until FSIS Alfred V. Almanza, used in the production of meat and has evaluated all comments received Administrator. poultry products, as well as prescribing and has analyzed the results of the new [FR Doc. 2013–05342 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] safe conditions of use. Under the testing. BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry USDA Nondiscrimination Statement Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 The U.S. Department of Agriculture DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S.C. 451 et seq.), FSIS is responsible (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all for determining the suitability of FDA- its programs and activities on the basis Food Safety and Inspection Service approved substances in meat and of race, color, national origin, gender, poultry products. Pursuant to a religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 9 CFR Part 424 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sexual orientation, and marital or family [Docket No. FSIS–2011–0018] that was implemented in January 2000, status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to FDA and FSIS work together to evaluate RIN 0583–AD47 all programs.) petitions requesting the approval of new substances, or new uses of previously Persons with disabilities who require Food Ingredients and Sources of approved substances, for use in or on alternative means for communication of Radiation Listed and Approved for Use meat and poultry products.
    [Show full text]
  • Full List of References in the Risk-Ranking Model for Food Tracing (RRM-FT) August 2020
    RRM-FT references Full List of References in the Risk-Ranking Model for Food Tracing (RRM-FT) August 2020 Ababouch, L., Afilal, M., Rhafiri, S., & Busta, F. (1991). Identification of histamine-producing bacteria isolated from sardine (Sardina pilchardus) stored in ice and at ambient temperature (25 oC). Food Microbiology, 8(2), 127-136. Abadiasa, M., Alegre, I., Oliveira, M., Altisenta, R., & Viñas, I. (2012). Growth potential of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on fresh-cut fruits (melon and pineapple) and vegetables (carrot and escarole) stored under different conditions. Food Control, 27(1), 37-44. Abadiasa, M., Usall, J., Anguera, M., Solsona, C., & Vinas, I. (2008). Microbiological quality of fresh, minimally-processed fruit and vegetables, and sprouts from retail establishments. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 123(1-2), 121-129. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.12.013 Abanyie, F., Harvey, R., Harris, J., Wiegand, R., Gaul, L., Desvignes-Kendrick, M., . Herwaldt, B. (2015). 2013 multistate outbreaks of Cyclospora cayetanensis infections associated with fresh produce: Focus on the Texas investigations. Epidemiology & Infection, 143(16), 3451-3458. Abbas, B. A., & Talei, A. B. (2010). Isolation, identification and biotyping of Brucella spp. from milk product at Basrah province. Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research, 9(1). Abdelwaheb, C., Imen, L., & Ahmed, L. (2008). Growth and survival of Salmonella Zanzibar in juice and salami stored under refrigerated and room temperature. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 2(2), 47-49. Abgrall, M., & Misner, S. (1998). Facts about eggs and food safety. Retrieved from http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/health/foodsafety/az1077.html Accessed: December 16, 2016. About Food.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Salmonella Seriously Policies to Protect Public Health Under Current Law
    Taking Salmonella Seriously Policies to Protect Public Health under Current Law Thomas Gremillion Director of the Food Policy Institute November 27, 2018 1620 Eye Street, NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006 | (202) 387-6121 | ConsumerFed.org I. Introduction No one knows exactly how Salmonella Heidelberg infected Noah Craten, but in September of 2013, at the age of 17-months, he was stricken with a persistent fever. His parents sought medical care early and often. Noah did not have the vomiting, bloody diarrhea, or other telltale signs of a Salmonella infection, so Noah’s doctors treated him with antibiotics. They ordered test after test over the course of a month, but to no avail. Noah’s condition deteriorated. Eventually, his doctors admitted him to the hospital, where they discovered a large abscess in his brain that required emergency surgery. It was not until two days after surgeons opened the toddler’s skull that testing identified Salmonella as the culprit. To recover from his surgery, the doctors hooked up Noah to a ventilator and kept him in a medically- induced coma for days. Upon regaining consciousness, Noah began an arduous recovery process that included relearning how to speak.1 Noah was just one of 639 people in 29 states that were confirmed to have been sickened by an antibiotic resistant strain of Salmonella Heidelberg, linked to chicken produced by Foster Poultry Farms (“Foster Farms”).2 Overall, the outbreak likely affected thousands more. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that, for every
    [Show full text]
  • Contradictions, Consequences and the Human Toll of Food Safety Culture
    Agric Hum Values DOI 10.1007/s10460-017-9772-1 Contradictions, consequences and the human toll of food safety culture Patrick Baur1 · Christy Getz1 · Jennifer Sowerwine1 Accepted: 10 January 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Abstract In an intensifying climate of scrutiny over long-standing food-ways. The long-term danger, we con- food safety, the food industry is turning to “food safety clude, is that this uniform and myopic response to real risks culture” as a one-size-fits-all solution to protect both con- of foodborne illness will not lead to a holistically healthy or sumers and companies. This strategy focuses on chang- sustainable agrifood system, but rather perpetuate a spiral- ing employee behavior from farm to fork to fit a universal ing cycle of crisis and reform that carries a very real human model of bureaucratic control; the goal is system-wide toll. cultural transformation in the name of combatting food- borne illness. Through grounded fieldwork centered on Keywords Food safety · California · Culture · Moral the case of a regional wholesale produce market in Cali- economy · Labor fornia, we examine the consequences of this bureaucrati- zation of food safety power on the everyday routines and Abbreviations lived experiences of people working to grow, pack, and CDC US Centers for Disease Control deliver fresh produce. We find that despite rhetoric prom- FDA US Food and Drug Administration ising a rational and universal answer to food safety, fear FR Federal Register and frustration over pervasive uncertainty and legal threats FSMA Food Safety Modernization Act can produce cynicism, distrust, and fragmentation among GAPs Good Agricultural Practices agrifood actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uneasy Case for Food Safety Liability Insurance, 81 Brook
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 81 | Issue 4 Article 9 2016 The neU asy Case for Food Safety Liability Insurance John Aloysius Cogan Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Insurance Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John Aloysius Cogan Jr., The Uneasy Case for Food Safety Liability Insurance, 81 Brook. L. Rev. (2016). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol81/iss4/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Uneasy Case for Food Safety Liability Insurance John Aloysius Cogan Jr.† INTRODUCTION Food safety liability insurance is emerging as one of the latest trends in market-based food safety regulation. But why? The answer is simple: food is our most dangerous consumer product,1 and our federal and local governments do not fully protect us from its perils. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in six—about 48 million—Americans suffer from foodborne illnesses, such as Salmonella, Norovirus, Listeria, and Escherichia coli (E. Coli), each year. Annually, 128,000 Americans require hospitalization and 3,000 die from foodborne illnesses.2 Many of the survivors of these enteric foodborne illnesses3 are left suffering from chronic and debilitating conditions such as kidney failure, paralysis, and rheumatoid arthritis.4 And beyond the profound physical tolls of † Associate Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • November 26, 2018 Scott Gottlieb, M.D. Commissioner of Food And
    November 26, 2018 Scott Gottlieb, M.D. Commissioner of Food and Drugs Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1752 Dear Commissioner Gottlieb, The undersigned consumer and food safety groups appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s draft guidance titled Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls.1 The draft guidance is an important step forward, ushering in a policy change that will provide consumers with key information needed to protect themselves and their families from serious health risks. However, the draft guidance falls short by focusing on too narrow a range of foods and failing to clearly identify the sets of circumstances under which retail consignee2 lists will be made available during recalls, particularly for packaged foods and foods sold in restaurants. We urge the FDA to commit to publishing a list of retail consignees for any recall that triggers a public warning, and to advise that such a list be included in all public warnings drafted by industry. The final version of the guidance should also establish criteria for publishing the names of restaurants covered in recalls. 1 U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, September 2018. Accessed at: <www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/IndustryGuidance/UCM621668.pdf> [Hereinafter: The Draft Guidance] 2 In the draft guidance, the agency uses the term “retail consignee” to refer to “retail establishments that, based on information available to FDA, have received or otherwise possess recalled food and that sell food products directly to consumers, traditionally meant to be consumed away from the establishment.” The Draft Guidance, see supra, footnote 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 135/Monday, July 19, 2021/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Notices 37995 analysis as a basis for the NSIS Additionally, program information may DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE rulemaking, to draw conclusions on be made available in languages other worker safety in HIMP or non-HIMP than English. Food Safety and Inspection Service establishments, or to determine whether To file a program discrimination [Docket No. FSIS–2018–0033] there is an associated impact on food complaint, complete the USDA Program safety. Had FSIS developed the analysis Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– Availability of Two Revised Guidelines for any of these reasons, it would have 3027, found online at https:// for Minimizing the Risk of Shiga Toxin- more thoroughly addressed data Producing Escherichia Coli (STEC) in www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a- limitations and uncertainty, as Beef Slaughter and Processing program-discrimination-complaint and recommended by OIG. Operations Instead, FSIS published the at any USDA office or write a letter preliminary worker safety analysis addressed to USDA and provide in the AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection solely to solicit comments for use by letter all of the information requested in Service, Agriculture (USDA). OSHA and the National Institute for the form. To request a copy of the ACTION: Notice of availability and Occupational Safety and Health complaint form, call (866) 632–9992. response to comments. (NIOSH) in examining worker safety in Submit your completed form or letter to swine slaughter establishments. OSHA USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of SUMMARY: The Food Safety and and NIOSH are the Federal agencies Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing with jurisdiction over meat and poultry Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 that it has updated two of its guidelines establishment worker safety.
    [Show full text]