Food safety for thought
Food safety for thought
The Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention (CFI), a food safety nonprofit dedicated to preventing food-borne illness and promoting stronger food-safety protections, appreciates the news story “Food safety rules kept on back burner” (July 3 and TribLIVE.com).
After so much work in 2009 and 2010 to get the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) passed and signed into law, CFI is disappointed that the White House has refused to allow key portions of the law to be implemented. This means that consumers are continuing to purchase foods produced under outdated standards.
FSMA has bipartisan support, along with support from industry and consumer groups, but to date the administration has not released important Food and Drug Administration proposals to implement the new law. Consumers can voice their concern with the delays by writing the White House and telling the president that food safety matters. America needs the FSMA regulations implemented. American consumers expect and deserve safe food.
More information on FSMA, foodborne illness and food safety issues is available on CFI's website, foodborneillness.org.
Again, thank you for your timely and accurate reporting on this topic.
The writer is director of outreach and education and co-founder of the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention, whose headquarters moved from Grove City to Raleigh, N.C., in January.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Food for thought
- Animal abuse
- Appreciate caregivers
- Poisoned long ago
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Voting insanity
- Election in review I
- EPA not the problem
- Law applies to drillers, too