Drawing distinctions: FAA and FDA

I was reading the Perishable Pundit today and one particular subset of today's report caught my eye. Jim compared the risk of airline accidents and car safety ratings to the incidence of foodborne illness. He made a case that the FDA should revise its policy of issuing food advisories, drawing on the example of the Federal Aviation Administration:

What the FAA does not do is go around issuing recommendations as to whether .018 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures is something an individual should accept or not.

A serious foodborne illness caused by fresh produce is an exceedingly rare event. This means that it is very difficult to increase an individual’s personal safety through a consumption restriction on fresh produce. Look at the numbers for this very large and serious outbreak related to Salmonella Saintpaul.

TK: I suggest you check out Jim's reasoning further if you would like. Here, he speaks to the crux of the matter:

As such, FDA should abandon this policy of making these broad recommendations not to consume. Instead, as with the NHTSA, FDA should publicize what information it has, being careful, of course, to put it in perspective.

There are two separate problems that Congress will be dealing with: The first is how to improve food safety on fresh produce — for that we have recommended a certification program to ensure farms operate to a gold standard. The second is how FDA should conduct itself to enhance public health without bankrupting industries so they can’t afford to invest in food safety.

The answer is for Congress to direct FDA to function in an educational fashion on foodborne illness outbreaks unless there is a particular reason to fear high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage.

This preserves the interests public health authorities have in disseminating important information, it helps avoid panic among consumers by putting information in perspective, and it avoids a disastrous impact on food producers by preserving consumer freedom.

TK: While Jim's argument is well-founded, I think his point is off base here. "The answer for Congress is to direct the FDA to function in an educational fashion on foodborne illness outbreaks unless there is a particular reason to fear high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage."

How can the FDA act in an "educational fashion"? Weaken advisories to "suggestions"? As it is, consumers have the free will to do what they will do, no matter what the government says.

If the FDA has information that might protect the public health, it needs to have the freedom to speak freely. The idea that Congress should "direct the FDA" to protect commerce above consumers would seem to me to have a chilling effect on agency vigilance and would be surely dispiriting to professionals dedicated to the protection of public health.

Yes, the outbreak has weakened the faith of the industry in the FDA. Better performance must be expected in future investigations. But the industry cannot callously accept outbreaks unless they bring "high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage."

At a time like this, we must remember the spinach outbreak and these words that Bryan Silbermann spoke: "Never again. Never, ever again."

By the way, here is a link to an interesting Web page about the origin and history of food regulations and the FDA.