4 ms·
> The cost difference is 9 fold between the consumer-end medical expenses vs the producer-end safety testing. This seems to assume that all outbreaks would be
by zeteo 8y ago
> The cost difference is 9 fold between the consumer-end medical expenses vs the producer-end safety testing.
This seems to assume that all outbreaks would be prevented by mandatory testing. However, the article says that the farm involved in the latest outbreak was already doing the same type of testing (on a voluntary basis). Clearly it's failed to stop at least one major outbreak. Maybe testing irrigation water is not actually that useful in preventing the consumer-end medical expenses.
- jermaustin1 8y agoBut they only test once monthly, meaning any excess runoff from a nearby farm into the irrigation after that test and before the next leaves a very large window of shipping produce before you know anything is wrong. I can't be 100% sure if the FDA regulations would have caught it, but I know I would feel safer knowing there were consequences and minimum safety levels that could be verified.
- zeteo 8y ago> But they only test once monthly The proposed FDA rules would have them taking 5 samples a year [1]. I agree that it would be great to have regulations that made produce safer, just not sure these are the right regulations. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/UCM473335.pdf https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/U...
- jermaustin1 8y agoThat is a terrible regulation then, if it is less safe than the current situation that keeps getting people sick, we need to do better than that.