The cost of food safety

I asked Tom Stenzel about the potential cost to the industry if the FDA were to assume a stronger regulatory profile. Would the FDA try to put the costs back on the industry through user fees? Stenzel said that he believes they would not or could not. There is a clear precedent that food safety is a cost borne by the public, just as it is a benefit to the public. While drug companies pay dearly to bring their drugs on the market, the argument is different for food.

In that context, the marketing agreement being put in place in California may be more costly to the industry. It is needed, of course, but the industry will bear more of the costs of administering the agreement. In fact, one California legislator argues in this article that is why the industry should welcome state regulation of production practices.

Florez wants the state to allocate as much as $25 million to pay for government inspectors who will have the authority to quarantine fields that violate the regulations.
“We're not trying to dictate to them how to grow a product, but what we are trying to dictate to them is how to produce a safe product,” Florez said.
Some observers said letting the industry provide the rules would put new standards in place faster than the more cumbersome legislative process.
Florez invited the industry to adopt its own rules as his bill moves through Sacramento.
Then, he said, “once our regulation comes into effect, there will be very little cost for them.”



He's wrong about that. Ill conceived rules by lawmakers unfamiliar with the industry could cost growers much, much more

Here is coverage from The Los Angeles Times on this news.