Sandi K.,

None of what you wrote surprises me. It’s so discouraging.

I didn’t know anything about Leavitt before this article so I googled him. Both he and Bush became friends [if they weren’t already] when Leavitt served 10 years as Gov of Utah. Leavitt proceeded to become the head of the EPA. Then Bush appointed Leavitt as Sec of Health and Human Welfare in 2004. Read more about this, especially the comment by Robert Musil, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Dec13.html

It’s so disheartening to know that politics is exactly as defined on one website: “Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government.”

Gee, and here I thought our government was “for the people, by the people, and of the people.” Sadly this concept has perished.

Terra Raza!

Lynn, I watched the hearing and one thing I found to be disturbing is Leavitt’s behavior depending on who he was responding to. He was far more mellow when responding to Sen Burr as compared to responding to Sen Kennedy. When I see that going on, all I can think is that nothing good will happen. If they cant set aside politics, they wont do whats right for the public.

~ Remember the pet food recall and how long it took for the FDA to accept that melamine and cyanuric acid were the causal agents of poison? And how long it took for them to determine the source suppliers? [Gee how many deaths had been tallied by then?]

~ Consider the very slow grinding of the government wheel. Think about the many years and lengthy controversial studies that will take place before the government masticates on the new concept or policy, mulling through its legality, its efficacy, its political correctness, the cost:benefit analyses, and all the possible ramifications if it runs amuck……before they decide to institute such a policy of fining the companies producing the product. Oh yes, and in the interim there will be reorganizations, people will retire, etc., etc., which means starting from scratch again with a new entourage.

So given just those elements, optimistically, it will be 3-5 years before the FDA approves the CONCEPT of fining responsible companies, if they ever will. Then the companies will start another set of arguments that will tie up the courts, questioning liability and financial responsibility. Figure another 5 years to resolve that, if it ever is.

In the interest of time [and death counts] it’s probably best to just stop all importation of anything that goes into any living creature’s body.

But, wait! None of that will happen as long as the FDA and corporate America beds down together.

Seriously? I wish your idea was doable. Accountability should be the name of the game.

Consider…

If Congress changed the Laws so that there were HUGE FINES imposed upon the importer and retailer who IMPORT FOR SALE imported goods that are tainted with banned, unacceptable, unapproved contaminants and the FINES imposed for EACH and EVERY item brought into the country that is so tainted… Then we would NOT need to inspect hardly anything. The importers and retailers would be so busy AVOIDING those FINES that they would do the inspections themselves. I think this would bang the door shut so hard that the manufacturers would quickly have to cease this tainted nonsense. After all the publicity for the manufacturers to CONTINUE sending leaded items and pet food taints, means they have no attention grabbing incentive to stop. I think that if the importers made emergency changes to their import agreements imposing inspections and passing along fines, even the foreign exporters and the manufacturers would stop because their greed factor is threatened. When I say huge fines I mean fines several times in excess of the value of each item.

Also, Sandi K, you’ll love this link:

http://origin.mercurynews.com/.....ck_check=1

“Leavitt told the committee that the nation’s food supply was one of the safest in the world. He said improving the safety of imports and food would require the government to focus on products as they are being manufactured or grown, rather than trying to intercept unsafe products at the border.”

Boy, every time I read that statement I come up with a different meaning. Is he saying that we should go back to producing all our own goods in the US? No, that can’t be, because if we did, we wouldn’t need to import any foodstuffs.

What am I missing here? Or is it Leavitt who doesn’t understand the whole picture and doesn’t know what he’s saying and thus is talking in circles?

What’s also troubling is that Leavitt says that our country has one of the safest food supplies in the world. I’m supposed to feel better because we’re one of the best of the worst?

Where did they get this guy?

We’re very much aware of China’s shenanigans.

You’re not making yourself terribly clear, though (or maybe you’re just a troll): Are you calling for fewer regulations on U.S. producers, more on China, or … ?