E. coli conservatism coverup (Part II: holiday edition)

Happy Thanksgiving! Happy Beginning-of-Christmas-shopping Season!!

Here at The Big Con, we've been celebrating by deconstructing the Bush administration's import safety "plan." Last time we talked about the farce of its "risk-based approach" jargon. Today, it's the fetish for "third party inspections."

So what do we learn from the Bush plan? That America enjoys $2 trillion in trade from 800,000 different importers, trading through 300 separate ports of entry.

Let's focus in on just one chunk of that $2 trillion: food additives. Our friend Carol Tucker Foreman, one of the nation's top food safety advocates explained to me, "Those businesses have completely left the United States." At what cost to our safety? We don't know. We do know that 5,000 deaths a year or so come from actual foods adulterated with microbiological contamination. But we don't have any hard data on deaths from additives. The Clinton administration, in 1996, Carol told me, "issued an impressive report" on moving toward gathering that data. "Then Clinton left office, and it was all rolled back."

But have no fear. The Bush Administration promises now to ride to the rescue. The new report's very first recommendation is this panacea: "Creation of mandatory and voluntary third-party certificate programs for foreign producers that are based on product risk, to verify compliance with U.S. safety standards."

Let's skip over the fact that the report contradicts itself on this crucial point: another part claims "[a]ny private entity that seeks to benefit from access to the U.S. market" already has the same responsibility domestic producers have to ensure their products meet all applicable U.S. safety standards." Dwell on that inane solecism, and your head will explode. So we'll move on. "Third party inspectors" are the answer. What does that mean?

Cronyism, for one thing. Just how many "third-party certifiers" would their have to be? And just how lucrative would these contracts be? Bonanza! Watch for Joseph Allbaugh to set up a consulting shop dedicated to the proposition.

The whole idea, by the way, is a giveaway to big multinationals. That's because, as Carol explains, "If you're General Mills or Kraft, you can do that. But what about these little companies that don't have that kind of economic power?" They won't be able to import—much to the delight, of course, of General Mills or Kraft. Your free market at work.

Two more problems, as Carol also points out: "A certification program that says we're going to rely on the Chinese or anyone else to test all of their products, and we're going to train third party inspectors—well, first of all, FDA doesn't have enough money to keep its own laborories open. Where are they going to get the money?"

Second, won't this rely on cooperation from the Chinese? "Who's going to set those programs up? Who's going to set the standards?" The Chinese? "They don't follow the rules when it comes from copyright laws. Why do we think they wouldn't cheat when it comes to food?" She calls China "a rogue nation when it comes to economics." Yet the report is remarkably glib about securing cooperation from the second party—Chinese manufacturers.

Not to fear. Explain these noble Bushies: "Industry has a financial interest to sell safe products to its consumers." No, they don't: They have a financial interest to produce their products as cheaply as possible, even at the expense of safety, so long as they don't get caught.

"Likewise, the federal government can learn and benefit from the experience of the private sector." That's rich. I'm sure there are plenty of Bush administration agencies who would love to learn how to better pass off defective product on the public, then mobilize the dark arts of public relations to stanch the damage when the truth outs.

Concludes Carol: "The whole thing kind of reeks of abdication of responsibility by the federal government for assuring a basic level of public health protection." And "I don't see any will in congress to come up with the money to do anything serious" about the administration's abdication.

Well, then: have very E. coli Christmas! And a salmonella New Year.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future