Ok, Bob, let's look at the math because you and Mr. Bridges are pissing me off.
Inspecting 1.3% of the food imports can mean
And why is it a contradiction that "Just 1.3 percent of imported fish, vegetables, fruit and other foods are inspected — yet those government inspections regularly reveal food unfit for human consumption."
That the inspections regularly reveal tainted food means that the inspections are working.
Now, maybe there's evidence that the screening of food imports is flawed [the link to "Imported Food Rarely Inspected" doesn't work], but this is not it. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
The way I read the above:
as 100% of foodstuffs travel from (eg) ships out to shops and from there into our (or animals') stomachs;
1.3% is held back and checked for various contaminants. The other 98.7% of foodstuffs are therefore NOT held back and do, indeed, travel out to shops and from there into our stomachs UNLESS a specific batch from that day's check is found to be unfit for (human) consumption
and if you assume that rather than deliberately sell us unfit food the rule is "Well, we think it's okay (Bob's belief system described above)", then we can assume that of the 98.7% that isn't checked the same amount (though not necessarily the same specific products?) is unfit for consumption.
It's similar to looking for smuggled goods. You can search one container, or one lorry, or one person, but if smuggling is endemic you will only catch what you find.
Did I get that all wrong? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
And that's with just 1.3 percent of the imports inspected. As for the other 98.7 percent, it's not inspected, much less detained, and goes to feed the nation's growing appetite for imported foods.
[...]
FDA inspections focus on foods known to be at risk for contamination, including fish, shellfish, fruit and vegetables. Food from countries or producers previously shown to be problematic also are flagged for a closer look.
Consider this list of Chinese products detained by the FDA just in the last month: frozen catfish tainted with illegal veterinary drugs, fresh ginger polluted with pesticides, melon seeds contaminated with a cancer-causing toxin and filthy dried dates.
Sounds to me as though they see 1000 containers A DAY and have to choose which thirteen to open. All the other containers...go off to wherever they're going. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Even as the amount of imported food increased, the percentage of FDA inspections declined from 1.8 percent in 2003 to 1.3 percent this year to an expected 1.1 percent next year.
"Whenever they say 'risk-based approach,' it often means they don't have enough staff to actually do the job. They're doing triage. They're trying to hit what's most important to inspect but they're missing a lot," DeWaal said.
Nothing there about fines, punishments, revoking of licences. If I wished to import something, say powder cocaine, and I knew the punishment was destruction, detention (of goods), or return, I would simply flood the ports with containers full of my preferred product (I would probably use different company names, too.) Those stopped, okay, that's my loss. Those that get through--won't be recalled because the product is off...into the consumer chain. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I can see this as a kairos moment. Suddenly declare:
"Our main problem now is not recreational drugs; it is drugs being introduced into the food chain. Henceforth all resources allocated to the seizure and destruction of recreational drugs will be diverted to examining imported foodstuffs. And, we will be changing the penal code so that importation of illegal foodstuffs (defined as...damaging to human health) will carry--for producers AND shippers--the same penalties that used to acrue to recreational drugs."
Heh! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
You test 1% of the food (sampling as widely as possible), and if you find something contaminated you recall all products from the same batches as the contaminated ones.
"Out of the port and away" is a red herring. Shipments are traceable all the way to the local retailer. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/commissioner/speeches_statements/archives/1998/sep241998.xml
If an importer selects exportation as an option, as stated above Customs is working with FDA to target high-risk shipments for heightened levels of verification of exportation or destruction. Customs will disseminate examination guidelines along with designated targets to all of our inspection personnel to aid in this process. Once we have confirmed the exportation of food that has failed testing, the possibility remains that the importer may try to re-import the food. This is a complicated issue for FDA and us, and we will consult with FDA to review their policy on this subject and do all that we can to ensure that rejected food is not brought back into the United States.
That's for the shipments they have stopped at the port. I'm assuming the stituation has deteriorated since 1998 (that would be one of the premises of the article quoted by Bob: that things are getting worse.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Federal auditor calls for massive reform to food safety system
The current federal system for food safety regulation is fragmented, ineffective and inefficient and needs to be fixed, according to a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).
"These agencies do not know how promptly and completely companies are carrying out recalls, do not promptly verify that recalls have reached all segments of the distribution chain, and use procedures to alert consumers to a recall that may not be effective," the GAO stated.
If they looked at 1.3%, extrapolated out and uses that to deal with ALL products coming through the port (and I'm not sure how they'd do that without closing down the port for a few weeks and checking through every last producer--supplier-shipper-buyer chain--whatever the order is--so that the extrapolation turned into a real regulatory process)...then, really, they're checking 1.3% of throughput and blocking the percentage of the 1.3% (which I read is about 16%) which is fails FDA controls in some way.
That's what I've understood so far. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Hence your good point re: REACH.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-074.html
Does it also regulate foodstuffs? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=d07449t.txt& amp;directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
1.3% is held back and checked for various contaminants.
Is it 1.3% of all food products? 1.3% of all shipments? or 1.3% of the contents of each shipment? That makes a difference to your ability to detect contamination and recall contaminated food. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Sometimes, as here, mathematical precision seems somewhat incidental to the story.
I am not convinced that screening more than 1.3% of the imports is necessary for good quality control. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
