Salmonella wins, food safety bill loses in early House vote

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives came up six votes shy of passing a groundbreaking—but flawed— food safety bill. The House plans to give it another shot today.

With animal droppings contaminating our spinach with E. coli and bird feces leaving peanut butter with a Salmonella taint, food safety advocates have long urged a reform of our nation’s patchy safety network that regulates the growing, distributing, and processing of foods. In the United States, some 76 million people get food poisoning each year, and 325,000 of those end up in the hospital.  

The Food Safety Enhancement Act would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to order mandatory food recalls and fine facilities $20,000 per day for certain violations. It would also leverage a $500 annual fee on food processors and facilities to help pay for enforcement and tighter oversight described in the $3.5-billion measure.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But the bill wasn’t just supposed to be about keeping feces out of our food; it was once supposed to scale back rampant antibiotic use and regulate cattle feed (which is sometimes laced with cow blood and—surprise—chicken poop). Last minute tweaking convinced industry lobbyists, such as the National Pork Producers Council, to get on board by scaling back antibiotic limits and easing recordkeeping requirements by livestock farms.  

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition says the bill would harm wildlife on farms and leave small-scale producers with a conservation ethic high and dry. The $500 fee would be the same for someone who “turns locally grown cabbage into kraut”—as Grist’s Tom Philpott puts it—and a company that churns out peanut butter for the country. The fee would also place onerous bookkeeping requirements on organic growers that duplicate procedures they follow under the USDA’s National Organic Program.

Yesterday's early vote failed to achieve the two-third majority required under special rules that streamline the passage of bills by limiting debate and prohibiting amendments. Today's vote has a better chance since the House needs only a simple majority.

Photo of peanut butter and bacon sandwich courtesy Inuyaki via Flickr

Brendan Borrell is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, Outside, Scientific American, and many other publications, and is the co-author (with ecologist Manuel Molles) of the textbook Environment: Science, Issues, Solutions. He traveled to Brazil with the support of the Mongabay Special Reporting Initiative. Follow him on Twitter @bborrell.

More by Brendan Borrell

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe