Gibson Brown:

[Regarding Lib's inability to climb trees] "nice to know if we were to see Lib running our way at a faster clip than we can run, and you desired cheap entertainment!"

Lib would never chase you... unless there was a good reason.  In that case, she might try to separate your radius and ulna from your humerus (nothing humorous about that!), but she probably would not be successful.  Nonetheless, it would not help your golf swing. 

Dave Hanson:

(In truth, nobody shops at Fresh Market for "essential items.")

Au contraire, my good Professor. Essential is a relative term. A monthly purchase of lean bleu cheese burgers is somewhat essential to this household not to mention semi-exotic type chocolates for my choc-a-holic other half. I think it has something to do with domestic tranquility.

Tally another point for Nick.  Essential is indeed a relative term.  I often find myself trying to explain this to my wife, our family's chief financial officer, when she questions the purchase of deli meat from Fresh Market to supplement the diet of Mr. Ricky and Ms. Lib.  In truth they don't really need it, but they deserve it. 

I also agree with Nick's earlier reply arguing that "our food safety system is [not] almost totally broken."  Is it as strong as it should be?  Probably not.  What constitutes a satisfactory reduction of the inherent element of risk is a subjective judgment.  It is impractical for most people to eat only food they organically grow and prepare for themselves.  Most of us find it necessary to shop for groceries and convenient to eat out much of the time.  We trust local, state and federal inspectors to persuade growers, producers, retailers, and restauranteurs to provide us with food that is safe to eat.  We also must take personal responsibility for proper handling, storage, cooking, and consumption.  My physician daughter tells me that a large percentage of "stomach flu" is more likely bacterial rather than viral infection: minor cases of food poisoning.  Most people develop a tolerance for low levels of contamination, so the ill effects are so mild that they hardly notice, attributing any discomfort to "indigestion."  It is very common. 

What is worrisome to me is the speed and scope in which serious outbreaks of contaminated food can occur, the health hazards, and the economic costs associated with them: spinach, lettuce, hamburger, and now peanut butter... what's next?  Are sufficient safeguards in place and being monitored?  States cannot afford to enforce current standards because of their budget limitations; neither can the federal government.  Can Margaret Hamburg convince Congress to fund more inspectors in a recession?  If not, what other steps can be taken to improve public health and safety?  These are just rhetorical questions for which I do not have good answers.

I am not an alarmist, nor a whiner, but I find the pharmaceutical industry far more distressing than food producers.  I'll have more to say about that later.  It is time to walk Ricky and Lib, who have been patiently waiting all afternoon.

Nick Prout:

Lastly, individuals need to take responsibility for their own food acquisition. Read the labels on what you buy. Find out about additives in the food you consume and what side effects they might cause. Be proactive (geez, I hate that word) because as the philosopher said, " You are what you eat."

 

Ah Mr. Nick,

I do so bristle when lectured about my civic responsibility.  You may not remember, but the food that made Kaci ill did not have melamine listed among its ingredients.  Consequenly, you and many other consumers who read the label carried it home and fed poision to beloved pets.  Although you exercised the due diligence required of civic responsibility, you were unable to protect your pets.  You presumption that this little "dust-up" had some beneficial outcomes does not seem especially comforting.     

Many parents invested big bucks in Thomas the Train items for their children, and felt a degree of security in knowing it was manufactured by an American Company and sold at a price that would ensure a safe and well-made product.  The more consciencious parents took their civic and parental responsibilities very seriously, and read every label on every item before its purchase: alas and alack, not one found lead paint listed on the label or in consumer warnings. I am not quite sure, but I don't think that nasty old company behaved like a very good citizen . . . humm? 

The truth of the matter is, you can walk down the aisle in any store--department, speciality, discount, or grocerry-- and read every label included on the packaging (exerting ones civic responsibility dutifully) and have no idea if the label is accurate.  And very likely, many of those items were produced somewhere else, under lower standards, by a company you thought was American.  Frankly, my dear Mr. Nick, shopping today is a crap shoot---even for those us who who behave like "good little" boys and girls should.  

My, My, I feel ever so much better!  Sharron

 Oh no, I've been taken to the woodshed!

My short piece on civic responsibility was not intended as a lecture, but as a public service. Certainly there are no guarantees that label reading will prevent anything malevolent from taking residence in the pantry, but it's good to be aware of what you are consuming from the standpoint of cholestrol, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and all of the other evil substances that are still legal.

I did state that life is a crapshoot and that includes grocery shopping. Even walking out to the mailbox can be precarious. You never know if something will fall from the sky or an out of control motorist will ruin your day.

You are correct that not all companies are necessarily good citizens but my sunny disposition and guarded optimism help me to believe that they are the exception by a wide margin. (Can you spell p-o-l-l-y-a-n-n-a ?)

Finally, thanks for the trip to the woodshed. Knowing that I brightened up your day has certainly brightened up mine.

Nick

Luanne Traud:

President Obama nominated former New York City health commissioner Margaret Hamburg to lead the Food and Drug Administration and called for more food inspectors and modern labs to ensure Americans' food and medicine are safer. Necessary reform or unneeded government expansion?

While safety trumps concerns for government expansion, there’s more to the story. In actuality, the ideal that ALL food and medicine be safe is unrealistic and probably not affordable by the government—or the consumer. That does not negate the fact that an updated and increased government role is necessary. Dr. Margaret Hamburg is an excellent choice to head the FDA with Dr. Joshua Sharfstein as chief deputy. Improved communication among agencies as well as plans for more food inspectors and improved labs should be implemented. The goal of business is to make a profit. The government is more likely to protect the public.

As we know, Peanut Corporation of America seemingly cared more for the bottom line than for consumer safety and the reputation of companies that relied on their product. Private inspections cannot be relied upon to protect the public. If the government plays a larger role, there would be less conflict of interest.

The additional expense of these necessary reforms should not be placed solely on the government. With the government more actively involved in inspections, more sub-standard companies will be uncovered. These irresponsible companies should be required to reimburse the government for additional inspections. The costs of new standards for products of greatest concern should be borne by the companies.

 Having adequately funded federal watchdogs (like the FDA) seems necessary to achieve at least a modicum level of prevention.   The day and age of consumers avoiding certain companies' produce or products (harkening back to the day of Public Interest Research Groups - Nader's PIRGs) seems like an unrealistic approach to weeding out careless business practices  through consumer "boycotts."  Shopping astutely seems prohibitively elusive in today's complex world where so many different companies (and countries - as Sharron points out) - are involved in one product reaching the store shelf.

Makes me want to grow my own food anymore!  Sharron - do your gardening skills include vegetable and herb gardening?  If so, I might get my tomatoes and spinach from you!

FYI all,   I have been trying to load my pic since Jan.  I try about once a week, and it never works.  Granted, I'm not the most computer literate person.  I have managed to load the picture from my phone and another from my camera to both of my computers.  But the avatar never uploads when I try to edit it into my profile.   I've been very jealous of all the cool pics that everyone else is using.  I'd love to show off my two beautiful dogs, and maybe even the flowers I've actually managed to grow this year.  Any tips for getting my pic to load, anyone?  PLEASE HELP!

Teresa

Teresa Johnson:

Any tips for getting my pic to load, anyone?  PLEASE HELP!

Teresa,

I have often found avatars to be rather quarrelsome and difficult characters that are rarely willing to cooperate.  First, you might want to check to see the file extension on your picture.  Look for a .jpg at the end of your file name. Usually you can save the file with that extension if needed.  If your avatar continues to react stubbornly, you might attach the photo to an e-mail to Luanne and ask her to help you or to insert the photo if possible.  I for one am tired of the old faces and would be delighted to talk with you face to face.  

Sharron

Nick is well-known in the panel for his sunny disposition and optimism, Sharron.  [Ah, Ricky, are you sure about that? --Dave]  He is a dog rescuer so he's part of our cyber-pack.  The pack sticks together; and once you befriend a dog, you have a friend for life, as Nick knows. 

We are not anti-business or pro-government.  We are for the People (and the canines). Dave says that in market capitalism, private businesses want to provide a profitable product.  That's the "bottom line."  Generally they also take satisfaction and pride in knowing their products demonstrate a commitment to quality and public service in addition to an honest profit.  This is partly because for the most part they are ethical people, and partly because it is "good for business" to be respected and valued by customers.  Nick did not state it in those words, but we read that between the lines of his remarks. 

Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that not all business owners, managers, and laborers share those ideal qualities.  The black sheep who exploit and endanger consumers give the whole flock a bad reputation.  Businesses have shown very little capacity to "police their own" except perhaps through competition (what we might call market Darwinism).  A lot of harm can be done to consumers and competitors in the meantime, and this is where the government needs to assert itself as the respresentative agent of the People with enforcement of regulations that establish standards and penalties.  Meanwhile, our representatives in state and local government like money for their election campaigns, and business lobbyists are happy to oblige.  Ideally, the government balances the interests of business, labor, consumers, and the environment, reminding corporations of the importance of producing food and drugs that are not dangerous. 

That's about all I have to say about this for now.  I am going to listen to the Duke v. Texas game, while assisting Lib with home security, and maybe pretend to take a nap.  Dave has work to do.

P.S. Woof woof!  [translation: we want to see Teresa!]

Dave Hanson:

At your urging, I wrote an exposition on the topic of faith under the previous topic of embryonic stem cell research.  I still may decide to delete it, so read it quick if you're interested

Thanks for the heads-up.  I haven't had much free time to keep up, so I may have missed it had you not enlightened me.  Should you decide to delete it from this site, I would suggest you save a copy of it for future reference.  I enjoy reading things I wrote years ago and am sometimes surprised to find out that my views have changed over time.

While I enjoyed reading it, I categorically deny having "urged" you to write it.  At least I think I do.  That word ("categorically") has always seemed to me to have conflicting meanings.  When I use it I mean:  "Absolutely, but within well defined parameters (known only to me)."  Some of our wordsmiths may wish to set me straight here.

Clonnie Yearout:

While I enjoyed reading it, I categorically deny having "urged" you to write it.

Let's say you prompted me to write it, Clonnie (as did the exchange between Tanya and Gip).  I have missed you in the discussion.  By the way, I also gave you an amatuer nutritionist's "green light" to eat cashews in moderation.

We do plant a small garden.  However, it seems like our neighbors, the deer, grorundhogs,and rabbits, assume it is for them, and we are lucky to get the leftovers!  Sorry! 

Sharron

Sharron Smith:

We do plant a small garden.  However, it seems like our neighbors, the deer, groundhogs, and rabbits, assume it is for them, and we are lucky to get the leftovers! 

Maybe you need a garden security team like Ricky and Lib.

Irene E. Leech:

Proper food safety inspection is necessary to have a level playing field among businesses that provide foods to us AND to make sure we don't get sick because of what we ate.

 Irene,

I think you have made an important point.   What happens to competitors when lax oversight enables some businesses to cut corners to under price and out sell others.  It seems to me that business and consumer interests are compromised.  The idea of a level playing field is a basic principle that supported some of the first efforts to regulate business. 

Thanks for reminiding me !

Sharron