You know why. Because that would be onerous government regulation. Americans are obsessed with the idea that the government overregulates everything. That's why Congress is unwilling to fund enforcement actions.
Add to that the common practice of adding fat (from other animals) to ground meat, and you end up with a recipe for reduced-quality meat. One of the biggest reasons to eat grass-finished meat is its balance of omega fatty acids. When the leaner grass-finished meat is fatted up with fat from industrial animals, that benefit is lost. The regulation that was meant to help did help in the average, but it also made it more difficult to go beyond average.
One side-effect of regulation in agriculture in general seems to be to cut the small producers off from the bottom by centralizing and raising inspection costs. That in turn reduces diversity in the food supply and makes it more prone to large-scale outbreaks of problems (e.coli in spinach recently comes to mind).
It also has a second effect, which is that people trust food too much (rice from China seems to be a case in point). Because all food is inspected and certified transparently by someone else, consumers take little interest in the process, which makes it easier for things that aren't on the standard inspection list to escape notice.
Personally, I'd love to see a voluntary style of inspection, where a producer can opt in to one or more inspection programs in order to receive a certification. Consumers would then look for labels indicating whatever style of inspection they prefer (right now we basically have organic and not organic, but there are many others that might be relevant). There is definitely a need for inspection in the food supply, but I think that our current model of forcing all producers into a tiny number of alternatives is less than optimal.
That is why the government plays a natural role in regulating food safety.
Also, I didn't make the claim that there is no role for government, only that inspections should be more diverse and voluntary. If government enforced a truth-in-advertising kind of regulation, where there are penalties for claiming false certifications beyond just reputation damage, I think that would be a much more beneficial arrangement.
Yet fears like these didn't stop massive fraud from companies like Enron,[1][2] companies in China adulterating milk with melamine,[3] and plenty of other companies making and growing food in unhygenic conditions and causing disease outbreaks.[4]
Time and again, some people will try to get away with the most eggregious crimes to make a quick buck, and damn the consequences. Relying on corporate self-regulation and the magic hand of the free market is incredibly naive.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Corporate_scandals
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_health_d...
The government inspectors and agencies are just people, just like any other inspection agency would be. As such, they are subject to the same sets of errors and failures. They are likely neither more nor less effective than a private counterpart playing the same role would be. What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements. If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people.
I wouldn't rely on regulatory consequences to keep them from trying to defraud the consumer or trying to get away with unsafe and unhygenic practices. Though such regulatory consequences would still be far preferable to self-regulation or relying on the free market to do the job.
But what I would like rely on (if we had it) is thorough, randomized, mandatory inspections of food before it makes it on to the grocery shelves.
If rice had to be inspected for the presence of unsafe levels of heavy metals before it could be sold in the US, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Clear labeling of heavy metal content on that rice which does pass inspection would also be a big help.
"What I'm attempting to advocate is that consumers should have a say in what is being inspected, and how, and by whom, and that I think the best way to accomplish that is through a diverse, voluntary inspection program with labeling requirements."
I don't see why we couldn't have both.
Foods should have to meet basic safety standards (like not containing unsafe levels of heavy metals) before being sold. In addition, if independent agencies, consumers, and corporations want to do additional inspection and labeling, that would be great! I'm all for it.
"If you believe that is "incredibly naive" that's okay with me. I would say the same thing about trusting a single, central authority to create a one-size-fits-all set of best practices for a food system that feeds hundreds of millions of people."
The reason centralized regulation in the US doesn't work as well as it could is because the ideological "pro-business" stance of many US politicians and their constituents have allowed the regulators to get in bed with the industries they're supposed to be regulating. On top of that, anti-regulation ideologues have tried to hobble the regulators at every turn by depriving them of funding, eliminating regulations, and lowering safety standards. Finally, corporations have way too much say in what safety standards and regulations they have to meet -- so they usually lobby for the lowest levels possible. The mess we're in is a direct result of that, and not of centralized regulation being inherently unworkable.
Getting rid of centralized regulation entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What centralized regulation needs is more funding, stricter safety standards, more consumer advocate involvement, and greater distance from the industries they're regulating. Banning corporate lobbying would also be a big help.
Does that seem like a problem to you? It seems like a problem to me.
Number of kids that've died from eating a Kinder Surprise, Darwin's Law notwithstanding: At least one?
If you want to complain about regulation, you're really complaining about people who don't want to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Rather than not buy Kinder Surprise treats for infants, they'd rather ban them for everyone just in case.
Regulations, in many cases, just reflect collective attitudes.
Moreover, if a simplistic analysis of deaths caused by "exposure" are to be used to guide policy then we should ban water first of all, along with buckets, gravity, and food.
Your argument proves too much. I mean, this does sound like a problem, but it sounds like the same problem I've encountered in every government I've dealt with and in every corporation I've worked for. It is one of the fundamental problems of human organizations operating with rules. The rule sets are both too strict and too lenient. But what is the alternative to rule sets? Philosopher kings?
I tell you what: since we both agree that it is a problem, why don't you list some large organizations that consistently promulgate rule sets which everyone agrees neither underregulate nor overregulate?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/h...